Race, God, and the LDS Church

[NewSeeker]

Continuing revelation, dude, continuing revelation.

LDS “continuing revelation” papers over glaring contradictions and logical fallacies such as when Prophet A says Y and Prophet B says not-Y. Prophet B contradicts Prophet A and it’s ok because of continuing revelation. One hundred years from now Prophet C will contradict Prophet B and after that Prophet D will contradict Prophet C. Today’s prophet speaks with the voice of God and everything he says over the pulpit in an official capacity is “continuing revelation”. That applied to yesterday’s prophet while he was alive, but now much of what he said is just his opinion. What today’s prophet says over the pulpit will also become mere opinion when tomorrow’s prophet speaks over the pulpit in an official capacity and says something that contradicts what today’s prophet says over the pulpit. Whenever people in the future point out the contradiction, LDS apologists will say “continuing revelation, dude, continuing revelation.” It’s a vicious cycle of circular logic that can never be gainsaid because the canonical definition of doctrine in LDS teaching is never fixed. The definition of what is true doctrine changes with every Mormon generation. Whenever a prophet contradicts a past prophet, the definition of doctrine changes to accommodate and explain away the contradiction. The ground always shifts underneath you, like trying to nail cranberry jello with shredded carrots to the wall, since LDS definitions are always in flux. Having discussions with Mormons about LDS prophets’ contradictory pronouncements and the difference between opinion and prophecy is a complete waste of time.

 

[Ahimsa]

So, until the ban was lifted, the Mormon leaders had said it would last until the millennium. Did they mean the second coming of Christ or the year 2001?

They probably meant the second coming.

How do Mormon leaders explain the curse of Cain starting in the 19th century with Brigham Young?

It seems that they assumed that the curse of Cain/Ham applied not only to Cain/Ham but also to West Africans. That assumption fit in quite nicely with the wider Christian belief (especially in the South) that Ham is the ancestor of West Africans, and thus enslaving West Africans was biblically justified.

 

[Ahimsa]

LDS “continuing revelation” papers over glaring contradictions and logical fallacies…

I see continuing revelation as a natural process of life, similar to biological evolution. The Old Testament and the New Testament contain quite a few glaring contradictions (which is why many Jews chose to remain Jews, and not become Christian). So, contradiction in itself is not a problem.

Besides, if God has already told us everything He is going to tell us, then we wouldn’t need the Holy Spirit. And, yet, the Holy Spirit is still here, doing His thing.

 

[NewSeeker]

I see continuing revelation as a natural process of life, similar to biological evolution. The Old Testament and the New Testament contain quite a few glaring contradictions (which is why many Jews chose to remain Jews, and not become Christian). So, contradiction in itself is not a problem.

Besides, if God has already told us everything He is going to tell us, then we wouldn’t need the Holy Spirit. And, yet, the Holy Spirit is still here, doing His thing.

So the Holy Spirit is your guide. Every Mormon will tell you you must pray when the prophet speaks and ask for confirmation. So two Mormons pray, but arrive at different answers: “it’s doctrine!” “it’s opinion!” Which Mormon is correct? How can you tell? In those cases, you have to go with what the prophet said, since he’s the prophet, right?. Then why pray in the first place? Because he can declare an opinion to be doctrine and Mormons must pray and ask for confirmation. So once again two Mormons pray, but twice now arrive at different answers: “it’s doctrine!” “it’s opinion!” Now what? What did past prophets say? Well they contradicted each other. That’s no good. It’s back to the current prophet we go, since he is a prophet after all and he receives “continuing revelation”. But maybe he’s offering opinion and calling it true doctrine? Back we go to the praying board. Two Mormons pray, but again arrive at different answers…and so on ad infinitum.

In the good old days, Mormons could trust that what a prophet taught over the pulpit was really from God. But no longer. Once two LDS prophets contradict each other everything changes. A can of worms has been opened. Now Mormons must rely on the Spirit to determine individually whether what a prophet teaches is doctrine or opinion. But’s it’s circular logic. Mormon reliance on the personal witness of the Spirit to confirm whether a prophet’s teaching is doctrine or opinion is identical to Protestant reliance on the Bible a la sola scriptura. Both are relativistic approaches that lead to confusion and contradiction.

 

[Stephen168]

It seems that they assumed that the curse of Cain/Ham applied not only to Cain/Ham but also to West Africans. That assumption fit in quite nicely with the wider Christian belief (especially in the South) that Ham is the ancestor of West Africans, and thus enslaving West Africans was biblically justified.

But “they” were not Joseph Smith. “They” were leaders after him. If there was a curse from God; why did God wait until Brigham Young to reveal it? Did Christ reveal it? I do agree that racism was not unique to Mormonism except in Mormonism it was a church wide policy.

 

[Ahimsa]

But “they” were not Joseph Smith. “They” were leaders after him. If there was a curse from God; why did God wait until Brigham Young to reveal it? Did Christ reveal it? I do agree that racism was not unique to Mormonism except in Mormonism it was a church wide policy.

The curse of Cain/Ham is in the core LDS scritpures.

What is not in core LDS scriptures, is the African priesthood ban.

 

[Ahimsa]

So the Holy Spirit is your guide. Every Mormon will tell you you must pray when the prophet speaks and ask for confirmation. So two Mormons pray, but arrive at different answers: “it’s doctrine!” “it’s opinion!” Which Mormon is correct? How can you tell?

Well, two Protestants can pray, and arrive at different answers. The problem remains the same.

So, what it all boils down to is, one is responsible, ultimately, for one’s own spiritual practice. Pray to God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and trust that God is Good.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I see continuing revelation as a natural process of life, similar to biological evolution. The Old Testament and the New Testament contain quite a few glaring contradictions (which is why many Jews chose to remain Jews, and not become Christian). So, contradiction in itself is not a problem.

Besides, if God has already told us everything He is going to tell us, then we wouldn’t need the Holy Spirit. And, yet, the Holy Spirit is still here, doing His thing.

and so is the fake one…leading Mormons away

 

[NewSeeker]

Well, two Protestants can pray, and arrive at different answers. The problem remains the same.

As I said. Protestant sola scriptura and LDS reliance on the personal witness of the spirit both lead to the same outcome. Pure relativism. There is no such thing as truth. All that exists is opinion.

 

[Ahimsa]

As I said. Protestant sola scriptura and LDS reliance on the personal witness of the spirit both lead to the same outcome. Pure relativism. There is no such thing as truth. All that exists is opinion.

Well, once you decide that the LDS is the true Church, then the relativism pretty much ends right there.

 

[NewSeeker]

Well, once you decide that the LDS is the true Church, then the relativism pretty much ends right there.

Not at all. That’s when the relativism begins. As this thread shows, Mormons are not in agreement about whether the APB was God’s idea, yet members of each faction in the debate claim they are correct and point to the personal witness of the Spirit as proof.

 

[Ahimsa]

Not at all. That’s when the relativism begins. As this thread shows, Mormons are not in agreement about whether the APB was God’s idea, yet members of each faction in the debate claim they are correct and point to the personal witness of the Spirit as proof.

It seems to me that whether the APB was “of God” is a minor issue, compared to larger issues like “Is Smith a prophet?” or “Is the BoM divine?” I suspect there can be divergence of opinion of the APB issue, just like in Catholicism there is a divergence of opinion regarding Mary’s need to die.

 

[NewSeeker]

It seems to me that whether the APB was “of God” is a minor issue, compared to larger issues like “Is Smith a prophet?” or “Is the BoM divine?” I suspect there can be divergence of opinion of the APB issue, just like in Catholicism there is a divergence of opinion regarding Mary’s need to die.

It used to be there could be no divergence of opinion on the APB issue (and the “the Father is a resurrected man” issue). Such is not the case today. Perhaps one day there will be divergence of opinion on the BOM issue. Given unstable rules for determining the LDS corpus of doctrine, it’s a district possibility.

 

[soren1]

I believe the LDS teach the former, that APB was revelatory policy, but a policy that had a built-in time-limit.

This is what the most consistent Mormons think, but many of them simply believe it came from man, not God. I agree with that position, but for different reason than I think they would give.

 

[Ahimsa]

It used to be there could be no divergence of opinion on the APB issue (and the “the Father is a resurrected man” issue). Such is not the case today. Perhaps one day there will be divergence of opinion on the BOM issue. Given unstable rules for determining the LDS corpus of doctrine, it’s a district possibility.

It’s possible. The Reformed LDS (now called the Community of Christ) has rejected the polygamy and APB associated with the LDS, but the RLDS also recognizes that God can work through imperfect humans:

1. The responsible study of church history involves learning, repentance, and transformation. A church with a mission focused on promoting communities of reconciliation, justice, and peace should be self-critical and honest about its history. It is important for us to confess when we have been less than what the gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to be. This honesty prompts us to repent, and it strengthens our integrity. Admitting past mistakes helps us avoid repeating them and frees us from the influences of past injustices and violence in our history. We must be humble and willing to repent, individually and as a community, to contribute as fully as possible to restoring God’s shalom on earth.

 

[Stephen168]

They probably meant the second coming.

If the priesthood ban included a limited time and that time was the second coming of Christ; why did the Mormon leaders lift the ban in opposition to God’s original revelation?

 

[Stephen168]

The curse of Cain/Ham is in the core LDS scritpures.

What is not in core LDS scriptures, is the African priesthood ban.

So, you are saying; the curse of Cain/Ham is in the core LDS scriptures and it is the reason the Mormon leaders gave for God banning people of African decent from the priesthood. But this doesn’t really answer my questions: Why did God wait until Brigham Young to reveal the priesthood ban? Did Christ reveal a priesthood ban?

 

[Ahimsa]

So, you are saying; the curse of Cain/Ham is in the core LDS scriptures and it is the reason the Mormon leaders gave for God banning people of African decent from the priesthood. But this doesn’t really answer my questions: Why did God wait until Brigham Young to reveal the priesthood ban?

“Why”? I don’t think anyone really knows.

 

[Ahimsa]

If the priesthood ban included a limited time and that time was the second coming of Christ; why did the Mormon leaders lift the ban in opposition to God’s original revelation?

The Mormons had been seriously thinking about lifting the ban for about 10 to 15 years before 1978. The even that led to the 1978 revelation was the presence of the LDS in nations like Brazil: the LDS goes to Brazil, gets converts, builds a Temple, and then find out that most Brazilians wouldn’t be able to be ordained in the Temple, because most Brazilians have some African ancestry. The revelation occurred, thus freeing the LDS to ordain Brazilians, as well as any other African-descended persons.

 

[NewSeeker]

It’s possible. The Reformed LDS (now called the Community of Christ) has rejected the polygamy and APB associated with the LDS, but the RLDS also recognizes that God can work through imperfect humans:

1. The responsible study of church history involves learning, repentance, and transformation. A church with a mission focused on promoting communities of reconciliation, justice, and peace should be self-critical and honest about its history. It is important for us to confess when we have been less than what the gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to be. This honesty prompts us to repent, and it strengthens our integrity. Admitting past mistakes helps us avoid repeating them and frees us from the influences of past injustices and violence in our history. We must be humble and willing to repent, individually and as a community, to contribute as fully as possible to restoring God’s shalom on earth.

If the APB, “God was once a man” teaching, and issue of BOM historicity are subject to divergence of opinion, so too are other things Joseph said and taught. Perhaps the First Vision was just a dream and God and Jesus didn’t literally visit him in the woods. Maybe one day the Word of Wisdom will return to what it originally was when Joseph revealed it and for most of the 19th century – good advice offered “not by way of commandment or constraint”. In this regard, evolving notions of the LDS doctrinal canon mirror evolving notions of what a prophet is. In the old days, God would not allow a prophet to teach false doctrine. It was unthinkable that core teachings would change. Now prophets can teach false doctrine, since they’re imperfect humans with their own opinions. Everything a prophet utters must be tested against what the Holy Spirit reveals to you through personal prayer. That begs a question. If the Holy Spirit is your guide (and no longer the prophet), then you can safely ignore what the prophet has to say. If all he offers is good advice that might or might not be true, just cut him out as an unnecessary middle man. Save yourself some time.