Comments on: What is Doctrine?

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:43:59 +0000

Move along, Jack.

By: Jack Fuller

Jack Fuller — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:05:10 +0000

What did Tuttle say when you presented your argument to him David? You did talk to him before you wrote this piece – just to make sure you got your facts right and to give him a chance to comment on what you were writing? Right?

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:31:47 +0000

I think you’re right, Margaret. With the exception of the issue of timing, it would not have been necessary for those who espoused McConkie’s views on race to reject his reasoning for the ban in order to accept the 1978 revelation.

By: Ray

Ray — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:58:57 +0000

Margaret, I understand what you are saying about his inability to follow his own words, but I view it like I view the “all men are created equal” concept – that those who wrote it couldn’t live it fully even though they were inspired to write it. Maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part, but seeing it that way puts it in direct support of the other quotes that came later on this topic.

I can understand someone not being able to live up an ideal, and I’d rather read the words for what they actually say. That might be just me, but it is me.

By: Margaret Young

Margaret Young — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:02:29 +0000

I like Elder McConkie’s words too, Ray, but I think you take them beyond where he did. I actually wonder if he fully comprehended the magnitude of what he was saying. Why do I say this? The quote you are paraphrasing comes after Elder McConkie refers to a particular teaching he had promulgated–that blacks would not receive priesthood before the millennium. Some have suggested that he was referring only to thisteaching. Since his revisions (1979) of _Mormon Doctrine_ included mention of the priesthood revelation but RETAINED teachings about caste systems and curses, it would seem that he cherry-picked which doctrines he would forget and which he would not. I far prefer the words of Pres. Hinckley in 2006: “How can any man who holds the Melchizedek priesthood arrogantly assume that he is entitled to that priesthood whereas another, who lives a righteous life, is not entitled simply becaues of the color of his skin?”

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:47:12 +0000

An apostle of God said, after direct and unequivocal revelation, that everything every leader had ever said to justify the ban was wrong – that it was the result of limited light and knowledge. That apostle, Elder McConkie, had been one of the foremost justifiers and explainers of the ban prior to the revelation. He said we all needed to forget about everything that had been said previously in order to justify the ban, and he mentioned Brigham Young by name.

In actual fact, the justifications that were used prior to 1978 really were the justifications put forth by white supremists and slave traders of yesteryear. They were the justifications given for slavery – with odd Mormon-ish slants here and there. Read the writings of mainstream Christian writers of the time; they were full of similar justifications. Even many abolitionists were opposed to full societal involvement – particularly when it came to inter-racial marriage. Pointing out the source of the rhetoric is not “speaking evil of” in any way – especially when not one person you are addressing has denied prophetic or apostolic standing to anyone in question.

As Dan said, nothing in what we have said contradicts the united voice of the prophets and apostles **since 1978**. That is the key, imho.

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:19:08 +0000

The suggestion that daproff is Lars Glenson is the most noteworthy and logical comment I have seen thus far.

By: Dan Ellsworth

Dan Ellsworth — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:40:56 +0000

daproff,

No one here is claiming to have more light and knowledge than the prophets; we are claiming that we agree with Elder McConkie that the early leaders of the Church — and many Church leaders in recent decades — spoke with limited light and knowledge; we agree with Elders Holland, Oaks and Jensen that the reasons given were wrong; finally, we agree with President Hinckley when he said that it is wrong to teach that someone is unworthy to hold the priesthood due to their skin color.

There is nothing being said here that contradicts the most current prophetic statements on the priesthood ban.

By: Ronan

Ronan — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:08:26 +0000

daproff,
1. You are not Lars Glenson. Dispense with the CAPS. We can all disagree about this, but stop standing on your angry soapbox.
2. People like you who insist that Mormons have to support the ban in order to “follow the prophet” are more likely to drive people from the church than anyone around here is ever likely to.
3. Funny, but I would have thought that the rejection of any doctrine that elevates one race over another is precisely about being “in agreement with God” rather than society.

By: daproff

daproff — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:37:29 +0000

Ronan,

Excuse me? Neither David T nor myself said ANYTHING about supporting racism or bleeding hearts or cowardice, so it is disturbing that you came to such a false conclusion from any stated premises. David stated that HE cautions HIMSELF not to reject anything outright just because he doesn’t like it or it isn’t politically correct, and I said that was a wise position to take. Do YOU think we should be more concerned about being in agreement with society than we are about being in agreement with God?

Can you show me where I ever stated that I agree with the “folklore” at all?

When the Brethren are asked “why” they say “We don’t know”. Are they lying? Do you have proof that they DO KNOW but are denying that they know? If not, then I think it is presumptuous to claim that YOU know why the ban exists-be it racism, stupidity, mythology or whatever, because church doctrine is that IF and WHEN God decides to reveal the “why”, He won’t do it to us first. His living prophet will be the first to know. We have no right or authority to censure the prophets of God. We have been clearly and repeatedly warned about doing so.

How many testimonies do you think you strengthen when you speak evil of the Lord’s anointed? How much missionary work do you think you accomplish when you claim that our past practices originated with slave traders and white supremacists? How does repeatedly tearing down the living oracles of God or claiming to have more light and knowledge than God has given them help Him to build His kingdom on earth?

But then again, as misguided as I am, maybe all the “teachings” I’m referring to were just “borrowed” from other wicked sources and should be either neutralized or erased altogether too.