Grandpas don’t bake pies!
(Boyd K. Packer, “For Time and All Eternity“, Ensign, Nov. 1993)
Your Friday Firestorm #22
November 23, 2007 by
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog
The greatest Mormon blog in the universe.
LDS Headlines
- Mormon Church gives water to boost imperiled Great Salt Lake - ABC News
- LDS Church says it plans more Great Salt Lake, water conservation ... - Standard-Examiner
- Mormon Church donates water shares to aid the Great Salt Lake - Axios
- Thousands oppose an LDS Church apostle's commencement ... - Salt Lake Tribune
- All aboard the Mormon women's history cruise - Religion News Service
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog 
You know, there very well may have been a time was this was true. It is still probably true in France (where I don’t ever remember seeing a pie).
I’m the pie maker in our home, so when my children have children, there will be at least one pie baking grandpa about.
Oh, I don’t know. I’m a grandpa, I made the sweet potatoes yesterday, and captained the kitchen cleanup. To be fair this talk is almost 15 years old and reflects assumptions about roles that are increasingly no longer true, except in households where Sis Beck’s “Mothers Who Know” talk will be framed next to the Proclamation on the Family.
Stapers, tarte aux pommes?
I make chocolate pecan pie, and will continue to do so as a grandpa, but BKP is right about one thing, I never had a grandpa who baked pies.
MCQ, nor did I.
Far more amusing than the institutionalized sexism in that comment is the fact that BKP quotes from a Mormon Doctrine shall never change (and this includes polygamy)) speech by Wilford Woodruff in 1881.
Perhaps Grandpa’s don’t make pies because there’s more than one grandma…*sarcasm*
See Footnote 36
And below is the link to the JoD
LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE
4-5 Nor I.
The gender bias of the Quorum of the Twelve astounds me, that men should be treated with such disrespect as to the making of pies. :)
In as much seriousness as I can muster, though, I do think that he’s talking about why Grandma gets more attention than Grandpa. The quickest way to a kid’s heart: food! (Funny enough, it works for grown men, too!)
Oh! and 2, the Sis. Beck comment is lame. Mentioning that husbands and wives should have children, and try to keep the house and dress of said children tidy isn’t simply outdated thinking.
What’s not to understand? As I recall, the scripture says [Editor: in pertinent part], Adam, I will […] make thy pies. Any divergence from that is just uppity intellectualism.
David, for some reason your comment made me nervous, so I tweaked it. sorry!
For the record, one of my grandpa’s made pies. He also canned his fruits and veggies and taught me to crochet and fish. He was a pretty unique guy. Born in 1905.
Steve, no worries. In retrospect, I’m glad you did. :)
I guess it’s hard to get a fire going in the drizzly Western slopes of the Cascades. But this line, stripped from context, is a lousy firestarter.
Steve: for some reason, Spencer’s crocheting grandpa makes me nervous, can you tweak that too?
Mark B, blame it on the tryptophan.
MCQ, that IS the edited version!
Four grandpas and not a pie baker among them. My mom’s dad makes some scarey molassas cookies though. That oughta count for something.
I know one thirty-something guy in my ward who bakes amazing pies! He’ll be a granddad someday, I’ll bet.
And #14 watch the snide asides about men and the needle crafts. My 13 year old son is a fine knitter and about as manly as you can be for a deacon. :D
MCQ, Left Field’s grandpa won a prize at the Utah State Fair for his cross stitch about 50 years ago.
So, Grandpa’s don’t make pies, but they stitch. Boyd K. Packer must be rolling in his grave. (just like John Williams. If you don’t get reference, watch the Simpsons.)
Men who know bake pies.
Ann, Aaron Brown’s grandpa was a showgirl in Vegas and did two shows a night at the Sands (three on Saturday). Top that.
18. Or for those of you who don’t care to comb through hundreds of Simpsons episodes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Williams
It’s on the bottom of the page under pop culture references.
Thanks, Jami. I was trying to find a clip on Youtube, and couldn’t find it. And I think that everyone should care to comb through hundreds of Simpson episodes. They will find it very rewarding. :)
Hmph. This Elder made pie every Sunday of his mission in France, at least for the first 9 months or so. (One of my companions thought it wasn’t worth the trouble. Wierdo.)
And my wife, who is a professional food scientist/baker is having pie month at her blog.
Well, I can’t top the showgirl story, but my Irish grandpa grew up in Hell’s Kitchen, and if I suggested he bake me a pie he’d say “shut yer pie hole, ye wee git, or ah’ll kick yer teeth in, grandson or noo!”
23 – Were you a grandpa at the time?
It was a joke – in poor taste by today’s standards, but overwhelmingly true at that time. My father and I both love to cook, but we have not baked a pie in our lives – individually or together. So, in our houses, the quote is correct. *grin*
I doubt it will be said in General Conference now or in the future.
Well, I had a father and a grandfather who baked pies. But DH, a staunch Julie Beck supporter, does not. Perhaps retrenchment is coming after all.
I thought that for sure this had to be some odd line taken out of context – then I read the talk. Put into context, it’s even more disturbing.
Growing up it was always my dad who made the pies. I had no idea that my 6’4” 240 lbs father was so feminine. And all this time i thought he was a manly man.
If you could read the talk, Loyd, you’d see that Elder Packer was making a light-hearted comment about why children always say they’re going to “Grandma’s house” and not “Grandpa’s.” It wasn’t a statement of doctrine. It wasn’t a statement about who ought to make the pies.
I suspect that it’s true in 99.5% of families, just as it may be true that some high percentage of families the kids say they’re going to Grandma’s house. What’s the big deal?
Mark,
Whether or not it was lighthearted, he clearly used pie-making as a signifier of eternal gender roles. Just like with racist/ethnic jokes, you can’t pass them off with a ‘just kidding’ without revealing something ugly behind it all.
Apparently it’s best that women make pies. Preferably pecan.
And our wives shouldn’t complain when we ask them to get back into the kitchen to make us those pies (ala Eric Cartman), because…
And is it just me, or does his discussion of keys seem a little graphic for a conference talk.
No pies, but my grandpa made some mean pickles.
In all seriousness, my father and I both love to cook, but I don’t think either of my grandfathers cooked a single meal after they got married. Frankly, I don’t think my grandmothers (truly the “bosses” in both relationships) would have let them. (I know my maternal grandmother threw away dozens – if not hundreds – of decks of cards my grandfather kept buying. It was a running joke in the extended family.)
In their minds, it really was just the way it should be – and they had absolutely wonderful marriages.
Loyd,
I think you might be reading Elder Packer a little uncharitably. I don’t see him making pie baking an exclusive requirement for the sisters. Rather, if anything, I read him as pointing out some of the benefits of being a homemaker: that your kids and your kids’ kids might get to know and like you more intimately if you’re around at home with them a lot.
My granfather is dead.
My Dad buy’s pies.
Maybe the guy in the factory in mexico is somebody’s grandfather?
Loyd,
I don’t see how you can take Elder Packer’s talk to be more offensive than the exclusion of women from the priesthood. If women are properly and eternally excluded then something like what he says must be true. If women are not, then he is wrong, current doctrine is wrong, and current practice is wrong.
Either way, I don’t find it that suprising to discover that general authorities believe things consistent with current doctrine and practice.
err, surprising
Mark D., the last sentence in #35 makes total sense, but the first paragraph is more than just a slight stretch – in more ways than one.
Ray,
Please elucidate.
Kaimi’s grandpa was queen lili’uokalani. (Note the family resemblance). I bet he made a LOTTA pies.
I do not have any grandkids yet, but I do cook a lot and will be for them. But not pies! Wheat is not my friend.
This year I made a lovely trifle.
This LDS grandpa happens to be one of the world’s leading authorities on pi.
I presided over the pie-making operation at my house, as my lovely eternal helpmeet provided soothing encouragement and nurturing support.
My grandchildren, when they come, will probably not have a grandfather who bakes pies; my wife is a far better pie and tart baker than I. They will, however, have a grandfather who bakes cheesecakes and makes ice cream. Cakes themselves are a mixed bag in our house; we rarely have cake, but we both tend to work on them. I do most of the creme brulees and molten chocolate cake, while she does most of the cookies.
The division of dessert-making is porous in our home, but the above is a pretty good generalization of how, on average, it goes.
#40 Try pecans for a crust. Gluten-free.
http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/desserts/r/pumpkinpie.htm
Interestingly, in our family the kids go to Grandpa’s house. My FIL has built 6 tree-houses, 3 ziplines, a handful of swings. My MIL can bake until she falls over sideways, but there’s no competing with that kind of fun!
Mark,
I don’t see the sexism of a belief in grandma-exclusive pie-making any more offensive than a belief in a women-excluded priesthood. What I find most offensive is the underlying sexism behind them all.
#29: “Just like with racist/ethnic jokes, you can’t pass them off with a ‘just kidding’ without revealing something ugly behind it all.” Like White men can’t jump? (But ‘ugly’ is too strong.)
Mark D,
“I don’t see how you can take Elder Packer’s talk to be more offensive than the exclusion of women from the priesthood. ”
There are MANY people who have no problem with the current limitation of Priesthood to men (even many who would welcome its expansion at some point in the future) who would disagree with your assertion. It is not as black-and-white, either-or as your comment suggests. In fact, there are plenty who feel that the Priesthood currently is NOT restricted exclusively to men, so your claim is almost meaningless as stated to them.
“If women are properly and eternally excluded [from the Priesthood] then something like what he says must be true.” That’s hyperbole of the highest order. There are so many ways that the Priesthood could remain in the domain of men and still have gender roles take different forms that it’s not worth addressing. It is ludicrous on its face.
“If women are not [eternally excluded from the Priesthood], then he is wrong, current doctrine is wrong, and current practice is wrong.”
Again, hyperbole of the highest order. We have plenty of instances of believing that cultural and religious practice norms can change. Was circumcision “wrong” because it was replaced by baptism? That would be a ridiculous claim. Was polygamy “wrong” simply because it ended? I think not. Was the Priesthood ban “wrong” simply because it ended? I think it was not God’s will, but I can’t prove that simply because it ended. Will the limitation of the Priesthood to men be “wrong” simply if it ends at some point? That is absurd.
I don’t want to derail this thread by turning it into an argument about any of the issues I mentioned. I will not argue about any of them here. The points are very narrow – that just because something changes or ends doesn’t mean it was “wrong” in its time, and that gender roles and Priesthood distribution are not identical issues.
I don’t think it’s all that sexist to point out that grandkids remember grandma better because she cooks pies far more often than granpa’s do. It’s just a fact of life at this point. It might just be a cultural thing, and could change at any point, if we so choose, but the fact remains, Grandpas don’t cook pies! (At least, seldom enough that you could pretty much say never and it would be close enough to truth.) Give Elder Packer a break.
Jacob
it’s not Elder Packer’s assertion that grandpas don’t bake pies that is offensive. It’s his use of this as apparent evidence that women are divinely ordained to bake pies.
He’s now saying that women are divinely ordained to make pies. He’s saying that women making pies is apparent evidence that women’s roles are in the home. I don’t entirely agree with the evidence, and the point, but I think we should try to read it charitably and not call an ordained apostle sexist for having a different definition of people’s roles are. He might have this opinion from a non-sexist point of view.
By definition, a sexist point of view is one that is made of ‘Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.’ What else should we call his point of view?
I think it’s indubitable that his views are sexist. The question is whether or not his sexism (or sexism in general) is wrong or misguided.
Perhaps this is akin to his accusations against intellectuals and feminists (and homosexuals) which he had famously made (and somehow forgotten despite all the hype according to his PBS interview). Is it wrong to be an intellectual or feminist?
On a side note, I was scared to death of my grandpa while growing up (and still am to a certain degree). To me he was a stern distributor of punishment, and I did all I could to avoid him and his wrath. Is this also indicative of our divine gender roles?
I agree with BKP. Grandpas generally do not bake pies. And yes the church is sexist if viewed thru a secular feminist prism. As are the catholics, baptists, and lots of evangelicals. Big deal.
Oh! We’re using slightly different definitions of sexism. I’m using the second, your using thefirst.
I feel the same way about blacks and poor people. Everyone else is racist and ignore the poor, so who cares if we do the same. Big freakin deal. Besides,only secular feminists believe that women should be treated equally in religious worship… and they’re all lesbians anyway, so again, big freakin deal.
Jacob,
well I think the second definition fits as well in this case, but that’s what half the debate is.
Since I don’t know how to end a link, I will continue what I want to say here. I’ve been trying to say that I don’t think Boyd K. Packer is trying to be discriminating towards women or men. You’re saying that he’s placing people into stereotypical roles. I’m freely admitting the stereotype, and I think he’s probably a little too far on the essentialist side of thinking for me, but I still stand by that calling him sexist is going a little far, because I think most people when they hear the word think of the second definition, not the first.
Get a grip, please, Loyd. Your wheels are turning a bit quickly right now, dude, and the engine is starting to overheat.
55 – I can agree with that one. You get points for making me laugh with the “they’re all lesbians” crack.
and I forgot to add the :-) at the end of mine.
Sorry, Loyd.
Loyd-
Just because you interpret his words as sexist, doesn’t actually mean he IS a sexist. By your own definition in the context of this talk, BKP is not promoting the stereotyping of cooking duties based on gender, but on pie making (specifically) from his own experience. If 90% of the grandmothers he knows personally “bake pies” rather than their husbands is he a sexist by association?
If you don’t like what the general authorities say, that’s fine. You don’t have to. But if you keep insisting that it is possible to determine what someone is really like based on a personal interpretation of their words taken out of context, you aren’t going to like what people decide to label you as either.
Wow,
a lot of people defending BKP here. I didn’t realize anyone took BKP serious anymore.
62 – Mostly because he is still an apostle, so it’s usually a good idea to take them seriously. And I’m probably taking you to seriously by this response. Ooh! Two can play that game.
Jacob,
you sound serious. I guess you are too serious to take the time to spell correctly. I bet you are so serious you can’t even see the word you misspelled.
It’s too. And I wasn’t being serious, I was mocking.
Tosh,
How am I taking his quote out of context? The context is that he is using his own observation of grandma-exclusive pie-making abilities (or duty?) as evidence that there is a divinely oriented difference in duty between genders. It’s not his observation of whom he sees making the pies that leads to a conclusion that he is sexist, but that he appeals to this observation as being evidence that there is such a divine gender distribution of homemaking duties (as well as priesthood distribution.
Here is an analogy:
John makes an observation that most of the people he sees making laying brick and throwing stucco are Hispanic. That does not make him a racist.
John claims that there is a divinely oriented distribution of duties concerning construction work. The contractors/managers should be white, while the laborers should be Hispanic. As evidence of this he makes the observation whites don’t lay brick, Hispanics do! John is a racist.
We could throw in an analogy of white slave ownership and black house-slaves in the 19th century as well (let’s assume the house slaves are well taken care of, may even enjoy their duties, and love their master).
Loyd I Ricker: “It’s divinely instituted that white folk are to be the masters and blacks be the slaves. While the different roles of whites and blacks are set forth in exalted celestial declarations (see Brigham Young and pals), they are best demonstrated in the most practical, ordinary, down-to-earth experiences of house life. Recently I heard a speaker in sacrament meeting complain that he could not understand why his slave children always spoke of going to his slaves for help and never him. I solved that great mystery for him: White’s don’t serve blacks!”
Ray,
If polygamy doesn’t prevail in the eternities, then the doctrine that it does was wrong, the practice of polygamy on that basis was wrong, and the authorities that made those claims were wrong.
Likewise if the priesthood exclusion prevails in the eternities, the present doctrine is correct, the present practice based in that doctrine is correct, and the gender essentialist claims of the current authorities with regard to the priesthood are correct in some form or another.
If the exclusion is temporary, then the present doctrine that priesthood offices can only rightly be held by males is wrong, the present practice of exclusion appears to lack any rational basis, and present claims about the rationale for the exclusion are wrong.
Fundamentals of the gospel cannot change arbitrarily and be considered correct both before and after. Elder McConkie was wise enough to imply that the previous race based exclusion was based on mortal limitations (i.e. they were a mistake). If the priesthood were extended to women tommorrow it would be an amusing spectacle indeed to watch people invent creative justifications for millennia of contrary practice.
The ban on the priesthood was racist. Period.
64
are you to sereus to capitolise?
68 – I’m not disagreeing, but I think you are probably putting it a little too simply.
69 – I appreciate it, but I don’t think we need to stoop that far down in the argument scale.
68: I do not think that the race-based exclusion was inspired. Some people do, but I have yet to hear a plausible explanation. The divine command theory is initially attractive, but ultimately the DCT is a black hole.
I should clarify that what Elder McConkie implied was that previous justifications of the practice were wrong. He wouldn’t have been so impolitic as to imply that the practice was wrong days after it ended (whatever he may have felt).
So anyway…
Here’s a very easy, yummy pie crust. Even my grandpa could handle it.
Never Fail Pie Crust
From The Peddlin’ Gourmet, 1977
A recipe submitted by Janet Chance
2 ½ Cups Flour
1 tsp. Salt
4 pinches baking powder
½ Cup Water
1 Cup Shortening
Mix flour, salt and baking powder. Remove ½ cup of flour mixture and mix with water. Set aside. Cut in shortening to flour mixture. Pour on paste. Stir until blended. Roll out on floured board. Bake single shells in 400 degree oven 11 minutes.
Yield: 2 good sized pie crusts.
Note: This is a very forgiving pie crust. Feel free to reroll without fear of a tough crust. The key is the mixing method—don’t get creative there. This is the pie crust recipe the world has been waiting for. Share it far and wide!
Re: the racism/priesthood threadjack
I’ve found the increasing circles of universality to be a somewhat rational argument, but it leads where very few people are comfortable going at this point.
Getting back on topic, we’ve discovered that both shortening and butter in pie crusts make terrestrial pies (I’m pretty sure that pies don’t fall below the terrestrial), but a truly celestial pie crust requires lard. Seriously.
And Loyd,
Frankly, as long as somebody is divinely ordained to make pies, I’m good.
75 – I take it that somebody is other than you?
I almost made a similar joke, about hoping my future wife would be heavenly ordained to make pies, or else I’d have to spend too much money at Marie Callendars, but I realized that I don’t want to damage my potential dating pool too much.
I said in #47 that I would not contribute to further discussion of the issues I used to illustrate my point. I now apologize, seriously, for creating the subsequent threadjack. I should have known better.
Frankly, I don’t care one bit who makes them, as long as banana cream and apple pies are available in the eternities. All other kinds can be available in the other kingdoms (wherever I’m not), but I’m not sure I want to live in a kingdom where I would have to ear pumpkin or rhubarb pie. That’s just too close to cruel and unusual punishment.
Not only would I not want to ear them, but I wouldn’t want to eat them, either.
Once again we see that those who question the fiery nature of the firestorms shall mourn…
79 – But not those who mock, which is quite strange.
Yeah, go figure.
Query whether Grandpas could make a no-bake pie.
Having actually now read the article, I’m stunned that this was even a firestorm. Clearly, BKP was talking about the stereotypical “Grandfather” as it exists today.
In 40 years, it will be said that Grandfathers are mean cooks, as a general rule, or else equally adept at buying them from the store. But I would agree with BKP that in 2007, “Grandpas don’t (generally) bake.”
We don’t eat quiche either since real men don’t.
Personally I do not like making pies but I love eating them. My wife will never make them so if they come from scratch it is because I bothered to do it.
But no I am not a grandfather. Though I am a great uncle.
#47:
Fighting fire with fire? Touché.
Jacob M (75),
Nope. Like I said earlier, my wife is the better pie-maker in our family; I tend more toward scones and creme brulees. But if she didn’t enjoy making pies, I’d make them.
The important thing is that we recognize the divine nature of pies.
Are all pies equal in the eyes (or taste buds) of God? Would Elder Nelson contend that God does not love all pies unconditionally?
#65
Can you point out where he states that either grandmothers or grandfathers are duty bound to make pies?
BKP does he say that males in general cannot make pies, or that they should not. He simply says that “grandfathers” don’t make pies. He also does not indicate that only females can or should bake pies, or that pie baking is a demeaning or inferior skill. In fact, his example indicates that the “pie baker” is more highly regarded than the non-pie baker. The only behavior he stereotypes is that of grandfathers and grandchildren as they existed in the year 1993.
According to you (and dictionary.com) sexism = “Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.”
Some roles are purely “social”, some are purely “eternal”, and a few are a combination of both. Not every “role/title/position” is interchangeable between categories or genders (although you have the agency to waste your life insisting that they are if you choose to).
Men and women are different-biologically, inherently and eternally. Some of us like it that way and actually think God knows what He is doing.
should read “BKP does not say that males…..” rather than “BKP does he say…”
So you are fine with the fact that God knew His restored gospel would fall into the hands of racists and then allowed it to continue for almost 150 years? To each his own….
#87
No. Because I am not claiming that BKP is saying that there is a divine duty to make pies. Only that he is claiming that there “is such a divine gender distribution of homemaking duties (as well as priesthood distribution).” That, I believe is clearly implied in his talk. Sorry if I wasn’t too clear there.
Well since ‘eternal’ things in this church are always subject to change or subject to being wrong or uninspired, to boldly and assuredly claim that any gender role is ‘eternal’ in an absolutist sense ends up rather empty. You can call pushing for gender equality ‘wasting time’ all your life if you want. I’ll call it charity.
I’ll agree that men and women are inherently different-biologically. I’ve take enough biology classes to understand how DNA works. I also recall my maturity fireside when I was 11 pointing out differences between boys and girls.
However, I have no idea what it means to be eternally different biologically. Do spirits have DNA? Genitals? Hormones? Breasts? What relationship exists between biology and the eternal?
In fact, I don’t think most people who get in the gender debate have any clue what gender is. Sex and gender are two very different things. This brings up a pet-peeve of mine. I’ve noticed that the church avoids using the S-E-X word (to protect children perhaps?) and instead uses ‘gender’ or some synonym for sexual relations. This results in the confusing “same-gender attraction” which could mean something very different than “same-sex attraction.”
I’m pretty sure that God knows what [S]He is doing. I just think that all too often we presume to know much more about what God thinks than we actually know.
Tosh (#89), the priesthood ban was, by definition, racist. It is simply impossible to argue otherwise. Don’t be silly.
#84 – I honestly wondered if you would catch that. Nice job. *grin*
#91 – Amen. I can believe God approved of it (which I don’t), or I can believe that He disapproved passionately but allowed it (which I do), or I can believe it was inexcusable (which I don’t), or I can believe any number of things about it – but I can’t believe it wasn’t racist. Given everything that was written and said to justify it, it was racist.
In Old Testament times, if the scriptures are to be trusted, it was at the very least a matter of convenience for God to choose a “race” (i.e. Israel) and use them to fulfil his purposes for at least a couple of millennia. And only a race within a race could hold the priesthood.
That latter restriction should have been over and done with by New Testament times, though. One has to wonder though, why not before?
#90
If divine gender distribution of “duties” is synonymous with sexism, then God is a sexist using your definition. Luckily, the definition you chose does not include the distasteful belief that one gender is superior and the other inferior, and BKP states several times in this talk specifically that neither God nor himself embrace that mentality either.
You seem to believe that some eternal principles have ‘changed’ in the course of Church history, but I am not aware of any. Sure, God has mandated and withdrawn specific practices at His discretion when human circumstances or conditions change, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the eternal nature of those practices actually changed. The fact that millions of humans did not live during a period when authorized baptism was available does not negate the fact that each one of them is still required to obtain it(by proxy)if they want the blessings associated with it.
But I understand that you are forced to twist such things in order to validate your arguments, like you did with my own words for example:
What I actually said was:
Because certain traits are NOT naturally interchangeable between genders(such as the ability to give birth or manufacture sperm)I personally think it is irrational to insist that they are, but your agency allows you to be irrational if you want to be.
I also feel it is a waste of time to push for something that the LDS Church (and every modern day prophet)already agrees with. They teach that men and women have different but equally important roles. They teach that both deserve equal respect, equal opportunities for education and personal development, and that both are equally loved by God. They teach that both are equally redeemed in the Atonement and have an equal chance at exaltation and eternal life if they are equally obedient to the commandments and laws of God.
Some people have a difficult time understanding that the word “equal” doesn’t mean “identical”. Five dimes is equal to two quarters, or ten nickels, or fifty pennies in value-but not in appearance, size, weight, or number. If you are sure that God knows what “she” is doing, it seems very sexist to attempt to convince others that she’s doing it wrong.
#92
Ray,
I’ll agree that it was “racial” as in it applied to a specific race and not others. But I do not agree that it was the design of one man or series of men that were not only “racist” by nature, but liars and schemers as well.
I do not believe that no prophet before Spencer W. Kimball actually prayed about it, or agonized over it, and that 14 (plus or minus) other men per presidency either went along blindly with an outright deception/lie OR were given false witnesses that the doctrine was from God when it wasn’t.
I do not believe that any member of the Church will ever be given a personal revelation about how the Church SHOULD be governed or operated unless the Prophet has already received and announced that revelation FIRST.
The God I know and can testify of does not call or sustain wicked/stupid men to run His Church. Period. He would not sit idly by while such men led His Church astray, taught false doctrine, or denied sacred blessings to those who are worthy and deserving of them. I do not believe that any of these men were perfect. I do however believe this:
“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them. But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.”
My wife is a much better baker than me. I come into my own, however, with open flames. So it will be in the eternities.
I can call my dog a horse all day long. It’s still a dog.
As soon as we turn things into metaphysical and unfalsifiable abstract conjectures, the discussion is over.
Again, ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are two very different things. Certain biological traits are not interchangeable between sexes. Please find me one social trait that is not interchangeable between genders.
This, of course, assumes that there is some actual teaching that all of the Church and every leader agrees with. It’s not all as unified as you think.
Again, I can teach all day long that my dog is a horse. It’s still a dog.
I don’t think I said anything contrary to this.
I don’t have a struggle with this concept. Thanks for the lesson though.
Again, I am not saying anything about what God does. I’m talking about what you and others think that God does. I’m not saying that God is wrong. I am saying you are wrong. HUGE difference.
tosh, hold on for a moment. Racism isn’t only prejudice, but more generally the belief that privileges should be accorded to some people but not others. At least some Mormon leaders were manifestly both racist and prejudiced. My (least) favorite example involves J. Reuben Clark, who instructed Pioneer Children’s Hospital to racially segregate donated blood in order to keep the blood of the Mormon people racially “pure.” Brigham Young and others were also hugely prejudiced against people of non-white races, as evidenced by statements in the public record they’ve left behind. Should we condemn everything about these men because they succumbed to the evil of their time? No. But we also shouldn’t deny the massive historical evidence that they did indeed succumb to the evil of their time.
Tosh, I also believe you’ve gotten your history wrong. Greg Prince and others have shown quite clearly that prophets before SWK prayed about it and agonized over it.
As for the priesthood ban not being an evil, well, let me venture a guess: you’re white and middle-class?
Steve,
I believe you read my words wrong…I said ” I do not believe that NO prophet before SWK prayed about it…”
My point being that if one believes that the ban was human in origin rather than from God, then one has to conjure up an explanation of why God allowed such a thing to be established in the first place as well as why it was perpetuated for more than a century.
Such logic must then be applied to Moses and Abraham and Jacob etc. Obviously they were also liars who blamed God for restricting blood lines and priesthood authority when in truth it as really just their own small minded bigotry.
Mortals generally speaking have no right to restrict the privileges of some people and not of others, but specifically speaking they do in many instances. Those in authority restrict driving privileges, voting, employment, home ownership etc in hundreds of ways. God generally and specifically has the right and authority to accord privileges to some people and not to others, which He has done in the past and will do in the future.
Some prefer to judge his prophets and apostles as “evil” or “racist” without bothering to explain or justify the contradictions in scripture, theory, and doctrine caused by such a determination. I prefer to believe my own personal witness of the testimonies of those prophets and apostles who state that the ban was from God (irregardless of whether they give a racial reason or simply say they do not know why) which doesn’t contradict anything but the insulted sensitivities of current social norms.
And I’m just saying that maybe you know as much about me and God as you do about dogs and horses.
Yet another thread ostensibly devoted to pies that devolved into a discussion of racism. Sigh. Inevitable, I suppose.
Tosh said:
“Some prefer to judge his prophets and apostles as “evil” or “racist” without bothering to explain or justify the contradictions in scripture, theory, and doctrine caused by such a determination.”
This makes no sense to me. How does acknowledging that past prophets have been “racist” (an obviously true observation) contradict “scripture, theory and doctrine” (whatever that means)? Unless you subscribe to some theory of what prophets must be that is unsupported by any number of Church teachings on prophets, not to mention the historical record? (I’ll ignore the “evil” comment, since it is clearly hyperbolic).
“…which doesn’t contradict anything but the insulted sensitivities of current social norms”
If the belief that God would not racially discriminate against his children is nothing but a “current social norm,” as opposed to a deeper tenet of New Testament Christianity, than Christianity must mean something very different than what I’ve always taken it to mean.
“My point being that if one believes that the ban was human in origin rather than from God, then one has to conjure up an explanation of why God allowed such a thing to be established in the first place as well as why it was perpetuated for more than a century.”
I agree. And I also agree that it is difficult.
“[God] would not sit idly by while such men led His Church astray, taught false doctrine, or denied sacred blessings to those who are worthy and deserving of them.”
Once Brigham Young started teaching his Adam-God Doctrine, why didn’t God strike him dead?
Aaron B
tosh, you lost me with #95 and #100. I never once implied that prophets were liars, wicked, stupid, evil or any of the other descriptors you used. I sustain every one of our past Prophets as Prophets, even as I believe the ban was not God’s will and was based on racist attitudes of the day. I believe the same of Paul (as the best example in the NT) when he told women to shut up in church and dictated hair length for men and women and other pronouncements – practices that we clearly do not follow any longer.
Also, I HAVE provided an explanation – that God allows us (even prophets) to exercise our agency in ways of which He does not approve. As to prophets not leading the Church astray, I agree that it won’t happen – and I believe that they did not do so in this case. I don’t think any member will end up in Hell or lose an opportunity for the Celestial Kingdom (the only definition of “not being led astray” that makes sense to me) because s/he accepted the ban and its justifications – even if it and they were not God’s will.
I just don’t see how the ban not being God’s will destroys the prophetic nature of their callings – or is in any way inconsistent with the rest of our scriptural record of other, ancient prophets.
Old Testament is nice and bloody….. really good stuff.