Annoying False Doctrines Strike Again

I think one of the negative results of this false doctrine (even in very watered down forms) is that those who feel privileged and blessed start to feel deserving and entitled. Gratitude, generosity and charity have a difficult time finding purchase. The sad thing about your story is in the probability that the missionary was well-meaning in his utter ignorance. Someone actually taught that crap too him in a clear enough manner that he could subsequently articulate it and do this kind of damage.

How long ago was this? Are we still really dealing with this level of idiocy and bigotry? Probably.

It was just three years ago a friend asked me for my “mormon” opinion on something. He (white) was dating a black girl, and was quite honestly head over heels for her. There was some significant though neither permanent nor insurmountable geographical distance to the relationship. My friend wanted to know what mormons thought about interracial marriages. Specifically, were they “wrong” in the religious and moral sense. My immediate answer was that they were just fine. I filled in that marriage isn’t easy, and that the more common ground a couple has to build on the easier it often is, but that racial identity is probably a lot less important than common opinions on ethical issues or even basic philosophies on how to discipline children. Then it hit me….why the heck was he even asking this question?

Some member who was a friend of his girlfriends told her she needed to break it off to avoid committing the “sin” of interracial marriage. So he wanted to know if that was really something that we (I) believed. I told him flat out that her friend was completely wrong both in the ultimate sense and in the assertion that this was the official position of the mormon church on the matter.

Then just a few weeks later I’m prepping for my young men’s lesson and there it is. A nice tidy paragraph about marriages between cultures. I don’t feel like looking it up right now to quote it. It didn’t get explicit, and it certainly didn’t go so far as to actually condemn the practice, but the tone of the quote was definitely along the lines of…..”it’s not actually wrong, but you really shouldn’t even consider it”.

Needless to say, I did not give that paragraph any “airtime” at all in the lesson. But one of my counselors was in there with his manual, and he brought it up. Along with the pre-existence nonsense. Yikes. I blew my stack. I wondered afterward if I had overreacted. Nope. I think we generally underreact, and that’s why this garbage persists.

I totally agree that it’s ridiculous that stuff like this does still propogate. I have heard the marriages between cultures bit several times before, but I’m not sure where it came from. I heard it a lot when I was out of the country on my mission, when many elders were coming back to marry women and take them back to the US. One of the things leaders would say about that (in addition to the whole you’re not on a mission to find a wife part) is that there can be problems when marrying between cultures like that. When the families of the couple are split across the world you could see hardships on either side. I could certainly see there being issues in a relationship like that. However, I have met people who have families many many miles away who they still manage to keep in touch with and manage to have perfectly wonderful lives together even though they both grew up in completely different circumstances.

Of course, that’s a bit different than the situation above. The above doctrine was always one that really bothered me growing up, and I had seminary and institute teachers mention it in lessons. Although I think I’ve heard it more in the west coast than when I lived back east.

#3 I am sorry but I agree with our GAs on this one. Now if by culture one means color of skin I would think this is racist but culture is NOT a matter of color of skin. I have seen countless of of girls marrying guys who had served in France. Some marriage lasted some did not. Those who did not had something in common along with many other issue that were not often the problem of the foreigner: not to want to give up on the culture. ALL the happy marriages I have seen between american and french were one where one had given up on his/her culture. Sometime the american comes to live in France, most of the time it is the french who cross the ocean.
You need to know that I remember our GAs saying these things in the 80′s when girls, in France at least, were literally running away from their country to go to Utah (the promised land as everybody here is well aware of). It was really like a plague. Thus it weakens the church in France/Europe.
I don’t see anything wrong in giving up one’s culture if it is a will and not a sacrifice. But you have to be aware that it is rather hard (if not impossible) to avoid this.
Now the funny thing about inter culture marriage is that I have seen more African/French happy marriages than American/French marriages.

I agree with #6.

We call it ‘false doctrine’ and can’t believe that people actually believe it. But it wasn’t considered false doctrine in the past–it was the teachings of prophets, apostles, and official policy of the church. And the ‘past’ here wasn’t too terribly long ago.

The church could come out publicly and denounce all of the previous teachings, but in the process it would have to admit that several past church leaders were racist. This would weaken the ‘one true church’ claim, so the church just ignores this stuff and lets these ideas die a slow death.

Interesting topic. I’ll ask the black man in our bishopric what he thinks…and maybe oure black Sunday School president as well.

I can relate to this story because I had a similar experiance on my mission. During a district meeting in which the zone leader was attending it was mentioned by another missionary that people born in China must have been less valiant in the pre-existence since the Gospel cannot be taught there.

I was upset by this comment and expressed my frustration very passionately. Instead of getting support from the zone leader he attempted to “reason” with me and show me where I was wrong. After a few minutes of discussion I had to accept the gross realization that I was the only missionary in that meeting that did not agree with the comment.

There is only one way for us to move past this false doctrine. The general leadership of the Church has to officially state that this teaching is false. Just as we have quotes from several general authorities that suggest race is an indicator of our choices in the pre-existence (our valiance) we need quotes from leaders condemning these suggestions. It pains me that the Church has not done this.

In fact, I wish the Church would come out and condemn this false doctrine as well as the teaching that African Americans derive from the seed of Cain, that they are a lower order of the human race, that they were fence-sitters in the pre-existence and all other racial biggotry expressed from leaders in the past.

I once taught a discussion to a black woman. Her husband came home during the discussion and spoke with the other elder and I. He said that the one thing that bothered him most about the Mormon Church was they weren’t willing to move on. While most Churches have apologized and withdrawn their rascist teachings of blacks the Mormon Church has never tried to apologize or withdraw the rascist comments and teachings of its leaders. I thought he made a great point.

I think it is a true doctrine that certain people and even certain bloodlines are called to various callings in the gospel. That being said, the Lord has made it quite clear that those who do not live righteously are booted out of these birthrights and those who do are adopted in.

#10 – “patiently waiting for Ray to bring up that worthless BRM quote and claim that it answers all questions on this subject”

It’s so nice to be so badly misquoted.

I understand the difficulty of cross-cultural marriages, and I think it definitely should be considered when a couple is getting married – but it shouldn’t stop the marriage. It’s just one of many things that can cause issues, but “culture” doesn’t mean “skin color” – as Gwen pointed out. “Culture” is way more complex and comprehensive than that – and skin color sometimes is almost totally irrelevant when it comes to culture.

This false doctrine should be drawn and quartered and laid to rest. It is one of the worst in our history.

Part of the problem is that we still tend to take an extremely hardline approach to the notion that “whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same”. That is, anything ever spoken by any church leader is gospel truth and the the mind and will of the Lord. This includes the teachings by Brigham, Joseph Fielding Smith, McConkie, Peterson, or Benson on the races.

Perhaps the quickest and most effective way of silencing this issue once and for all would be for the First Presidency to issue a statement that church leaders were reflecting some cultural racist views, that those views are not scriptural but were based on their understanding, and are not to be repeated. (Then again, perhaps not, as evidenced by the number of people in the Church who seem to place ETB’s anti-Commie screeds from the 1960s above the teachings of Hinckley or Monson. We do tend to prefer the Dead Prophets’ Society.)

Okay, maybe because I am in an interracial cross-cultural marriage, I get more upset about these things than I should, but seriously I wish they would apologize for these statements. Also, I think it is really stupid and racist to believe that the cultural differences break up a marriage. I think unwillingness to change and adapt break up a marriage period, regardless of culture. I think that a neighbor who marries a neighbor will still have vast differences in how they were raised, and they will have to adjust their ways. It may be more pronounced in a multi-cultural marriage, but for me it makes it easier, because the differences are easy to see, and we went into the marriage with our eyes open to that. Staying together is a choice, and something that is easily worked at. Though I get sick of the condesending stares from people in the ward who are older and obviously disagree with my choice of a marriage partner. My grandmother who I loved dearly said she was ashamed when I got engaged, and she died a week before the marriage. I am convinced she could not accept my choice, and would not be surprised if she just gave up on life rather than face such an awful thing as an interracial grandchild. It hurts so much to know that the teaching of the church lead to such thoughts.

Mr. Stephen Marsh said, “But racial and racist types of doctrines really offend me. My grandfather quit his first church over them, so it just might be in the blood (did I just buy into something like the false doctrines I’m picking at?).”

How do you reconcile the following statements from Brigham Young. These are definately racist doctrines. The Journal of Discourses were studied in the church within my lifetime as doctrine. To sweep them under the rug is unacceptable.

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.

This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed.”

Brigham Young-President and second ‘Prophet’ of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110

“How do you reconcile the following statements from Brigham Young. These are definately racist doctrines. The Journal of Discourses were studied in the church within my lifetime as doctrine. To sweep them under the rug is unacceptable.”

I don’t think anyone wants to sweep them under the rug. Right now they seem to be dying the slow death of a starving tree, as fewer and fewer members believe them. But most of us would like to violently hack them to pieces of kindling with the hatchet of modern revelation and toss them into the fire of repudiated false doctrine.

adam, it is interesting that your reaction is exactly the same as the servants in the vineyard described in Jacob 5 when they wanted to prune the trees most vigorously. The response basically was, “I don’t want my tree to die again, so I will clear away the bad at a speed that will allow it to continue to live.” Remember, that allegory says explicitly that the Kingdom of God would include bad-fruit producing limbs that would have to be pruned away and cast into the fire. We forget that sometimes in our desire for perfection.

I can honor the people who enacted and accepted the ban for the wonderful things they did, while simultaneously recognizing those areas like this where I believe they falied miserably – largely because I really want the same charitable consideration 30 years from now when others look back at what I have written and shake their heads (and probably their fists) at the areas where I am failing miserably. I know what some of those areas are; I have no idea what others are; I pray the future will look kindly on my flawed but sincere efforts – so I try to do the same for those in the past.

#18 I totally agree with you. Let me tell you this funny story. I was talking with friends about the best restaurant in town and one of them said that she did not understand why in a certain chines restaurant we were talking about they did not offer “french bread”. I was totally astonished that she had actually asked such a question. She was not stupid. She was just french that thinks that everybody she eat french because it is the best food, everybody should speak french because it is the most beautiful language and the language of love (I personally like English better and I just looooove your “th” sound) YET not everybody can speak french because it is so hard so you have to be pretty smart to be able to rise from your low barbarian English language to the higher language that french is. Do I need to go further or do everybody get an idea?
The problem I realize that people have is that when one has a darker skin it is easier to keep on mind that this person must have a different culture. It makes things a lot easier and communication always a constant effort.
I won’t start counting down how many times my culture was either an issue or just something “funny” on my mission. Because you know…I am LDS and white….I should necessarily have the same way to speak, the same way to see things, the same goal and the same up breeding. The funny thing to me is that people don’t know how much for a french person I am “American” because of the way my mother raised me.
This is one thing I have been aware of very young: I could not marry an American unless this guy is unusually gifted for understanding what it means to be different.
It does not mean that I will not marry an American, it only means that if I should ever fall in love with someone of “the lower breed” (ARGH! just teasing please don’t take it bad) I would be careful that I would not have to spend all my time and energy being the one always crossing the bridge.

Joe P. – you can quite easily trace most of BY’s folk doctrines directly back to his protestant upbringing prior to his conversion to LDS. He also uses the words “hell” and “damn” a lot more than most LDS leaders – another byproduct of the hellfire and brimstone protestant sermons he was raised on. Additionally, as Ray points out, most of his racist rhetoric was common for his day, which absolutely doesn’t make it right. It just illustrates that prophets are fallible and a product of their time, for both good and bad. I have not seen any racist statements made by Joseph Smith, by contrast.

An interesting side topic that came up yesterday at church was that the migrating Saints who left Missouri basically kept the church out of the Civil War which may have preserved many lives, especially since the majority of Saints were anti-slavery while Missouri was not. To some extent, we can be proud of the anti-slavery heritage while feeling shame for the racist rhetoric.

“He’d never looked at his false doctrine ” I thought everyone in Utah believes this is just fact.

#11 “The general leadership of the Church has to officially state that this teaching is false. Just as we have quotes from several general authorities that suggest race is an indicator of our choices in the pre-existence (our valiance) we need quotes from leaders condemning these suggestions. It pains me that the Church has not done this.”

Here is the real problem. The church just doesn’t do this, they rarely come out publicly against past beliefs. They seem to only come out against rumors like the youths-generals-in-heaven one. But whatever contradicts past leaders, well they stay quiet on those ones.

And if the new apostle is just another white lawyer who is married to a white woman, well then people can feel somewhat vindicated in their beliefs on interracial and cross-cultural marriages, and in all these ‘more valiant theories’ since only whites run the show (that includes white Germans). Hopefully the Lord is ready to change things and call a Nigerian or pacific islander area authority as apostle, because men like Elders Costa or Zivic aren’t really ‘colored’!

I find the Mormon “pre-mortal existence” view of the world disturbing, if not offensive. The idea that the suffering and misfortunes being visited upon non-white races was because of some failing in their “pre-existence” serves only to reinforce the fallacy of white supremacy. It’s not difficult to trace how American exceptionalism or manifest destiny came about: I’m blessed above anyone else, I’m better than you, and therefore I own you.

Mr. Li

“I find the Mormon “pre-mortal existence” view of the world disturbing, if not offensive.”

The point is in this post that is not THE MORMON view, though it may be some Mormon’s view. That idea has pretty much been discounted. In fact, I have often thought a completely opposite view. That the ones born in the gospel might need more help in this life. The folks born without benefit of the gospel in this life might be stronger spirits because of their ability to endure life without it.

The one things that has always gotten me is when members get up and say how blessed they are for being born into a LDS family. As if the rest of us were not blessed. On the other hand, where much is given, much is required.

So what do we do about a quote like this from Joseph that figures in the current lesson in the JS manual.

“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft. …”

I suppose one could say that the members and GAs who propagate racist thinking do (did) not actually embrace Mormonism. Or perhaps one might say that JS was speaking narrowly in terms of attitudes towards knowledge. But for us today its quite difficult to read words like superstition and bigotry in a narrow sense.

Annon. –

“I suppose one could say that the members and GAs who propagate racist thinking do (did) not actually embrace Mormonism”

Or it could mean they were imperfect human beings like you and the rest of us.

On the other hand, one can read the Declaration of Independence where it says that “all men were created equal” knowing that they really didn’t mean “all” men but all “white” men. And that didn’t include women, either.

So, take your pick.

#39

No offense but the short reply to you is NO DUH.

The longer reply is:

Of course they were imperfect human beings and of course there is the revisionism we do when reading the DOI. That’s not the issue. The issue is what was JS speaking to? And what do we hear in his remark? How do we apply it? Do we take it as an aspiration? As a statement of fact regarding the power of Mormonism? What do we say about people who don’t live up to the statement, i.e. all of us? its not really enough to say we are flawed human beings and use that to try to end discussion.

JS believed in and preached with great passion about the power of knowledge and that we are free to embrace all truth and yet when it comes to the ontological status or meaning of other human beings we have a robust history of superstition, bigotry, and ignorance that is still playing out today. Hence the false doctrine being discussed here. There are real intellectual and spiritual lessons to be gained from the persistence of false doctrine of this sort. A lot of it has to do with how we seek to use difference.

I really like the JS quote (problematic as it is) because it suggests that just embracing the religion ushers in a new intellectual era for the believer, and yet we have so many problems making that happen. A lot of time Mormon culture encourages us to narrow our world view, to not get out there and seek knowledge from the broader world to be suspicious of truth, knowledge, people, that are on the outside.

Gwennaëlle — that was a great story.

The Joseph Smith quote is perfect here, because it comes from a lesson about how creeds, current beliefs and a failure to challenge them can lead us to rely on logic and come to false conclusions (among other things — that is how the lesson developed when I taught it Sunday).

Side comment on missionaries who go back and marry girls from their mission, and then it doesn’t work out:

I’ve often wondered if this has less to do with cultural differences and more to do with an initial power imbalance, especially in the cases where the missionary has been involved in teaching/baptizing the future bride.

Also, FWIW on the original topic: I’ve often thought that the fact I was born in the church, white, and in the Americas had nothing to do with premortal valiance. I’m rather inclined to think that I was “placed” where I was because that was the only way I was ever going to have any kind of chance of accepting the things that would be necessary for me to accept.

I think there are valid reasons to believe that the pre-existence affects this life. (I don’t have the energy to go into all of them here. If anyone’s interested, I discussed several of them on this thread at Mormon Mentality.) However, the problem that arises is that it’s impossible to know how “advantages” or “disadvantages” would be distributed, or what constitutes either one. Unfortunately, this has become so associated with race that no one will even touch it anymore because of all the baggage it carries.

The race / prosperity, etc. interpretations are most definitely false doctrine in my opinion. But the underlying idea – “valiance,” for lack of a better word, in the pre-existence affects this life – isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just impossible to know how it affects it and inappropriate to speculate about others’ valiance based on their life circumstances.

I hate to belabour the point, and subject your readers to something they might have come across ad nauseum: that the pre-mortal existence world view serves perfectly to put the native hordes in their place. That’s how it is folks, and there’s nothing you or I can do about it. Personally, I happily join the ranks of the native hordes, and would smack my pre-mortal existent self silly if I would even think of becoming white and delightsome.

Okay, it’s been said here, but here it goes again: in April 2006 Conference Pres. Hinckley denounced racist thinking. He begins his Priesthood session talk by saying that racism has no place among the Saints.

Those who belong to the “dead prophets’ society” can now adopt that teaching, since pres. Hinckley is dead now, too.

I believe that our mortal environment is such as will give us opportunity to grow. Our needs are different, so our attempts to guess what others’ situations mean are doomed to fail. Our choices are more important than the environment where we make them.

Oh, come on people. Get back on point.

For Christmas I’m going to get my BYU attending daughters t-shirts that say “I’m that hot girl your Mission President said you would marry if you worked hard.”

#50 “What if our placement on earth is just totally random?”
A very smart man once said ‘God does not play dice’.

“That frankly makes more sense to me than the notion that we’re just pawns on God’s chess board”
But would a loving, and all knowing, Father do this? I for one doubt that it is the case.

“my son who has muscular dystrophy felt that it was all wrong and that even his illness didn’t mean that he was valiant in the pre existence it just happens its totally random”

While I acknowledge that this is a difficult situation, at the same time I recall what Jesus told his apostles when they asked about a man blind from birth, if he or his parents had sinned. Jesus’ answer says it all when he said ‘neither’ but so that Gods works may be seen by the world through him (John 9)

Maybe Elder Peterson was just like the apostles of old, those who placed the blame of a mans blindness on his or his parents sins. (note that to ask this shows that the apostles also believed in a pre-existence, since they asked if he had sinned before birth)

I personally believe that each and every one of us was placed in a life with a specific set of circumstances designed to give us and those around us the greatest possible chance at exaltation. In the end, no person will be able to point to another as the cause for their failure. No one will be able to point to an event to say “this is why I didn’t do what was asked of me.” We are all uniquely situated according to our unique spirits, but not everything that happens to us is for our edification and opportunity. Sometimes it is for the edification and opportunity of those who surround us.

I don’t believe this is a comfortable concept, but I think it is an eternal one.

Because I believe this, I think the Church allows some speculations because it is according to God’s plan. If everything were told to us exactly the way we wanted to believe it, we would have no room to discover for ourselves to distinguish good from evil and truth from error. That is, after all, the purpose of this life.

Along with that is the understanding that one is to follow the living prophet of one’s day. Those in Brigham Young’s time were blessed and benefited by his bigotry. That doesn’t mean it was right, but it DOES mean that it was according to God’s will. That, I believe, is what the promise means that the Church’s leaders will never lead the Church astray: God’s will is paramount in this Church, and He has promised to remove those who damage His work. We as individuals do not need to buy into all the Prophet’s words, but we ought not to dismiss them simply because they do not align with our understanding. We as individuals MUST turn to God and develop a relationship with His Spirit to know how to apply the words of the Prophets to our circumstances, and utterly refrain from teaching that personal application as God’s will for others.

It’s a delicate balance, but that is why the road to heaven is a narrow one.

#56 “Our SP told us we weren’t to write church headquarters for clarification and if we did they’d just send the letter to him”

Yes, unfortunately that’s what happens. And even if the SP writes a letter about it or passes on your question up the chain, they will probably just give a generic non-binding answer. One guy in our stake asked why he couldn’t be a temple worker anymore after he divorced (since the temple president had taken the slip off his recommend as soon as he found out about the divorce, told him there’s a 5 year waiting period and he needs to remarry) and the letter went via the correct channels but he only got back a 3 paragraph answer signed by a secretary to the first presidency, not Monson or a counselor, which didn’t answer the question at all but only said that he had the ‘blessing and opportunity’ to serve as a patron! And that no further correspondence would be entered into.

It seems that the first presidency just isn’t interested in one off questions. I don’t know how they can claim to be current and up to date with members’ problems because they certainly don’t talk to members, and in stake conferences when a GA requests questions one really can’t ask too much or go to deeply into a problem, its all very brief and artificial. Elder Bednar had a general questions and answers session here when he visited but the questions were so censored that they were useless, like the only ones to get through were: ‘how can I prepare myself for the Aaronic priesthood?’, ‘how can we serve the ward more?’….etc.

Its all one way traffic in our church, all from the top down. They just guess at what members are going through, and usually address what Utah or surrounding members face in life. Just how it is.

I agree that decisions should be made at the lower levels. I know with our family situation much prayer and fasting was done with regard to our son and having him baptisized/given the priesthood and such. Our local leaders (priest quorum advisor/bishop) were on board and in fact personally asked him to give the sacrament prayer that Sunday.

My issue is when upper levels intervene/express their opinions it would be nice to have a response from them explaining the doctrine they are basing their decisions on. I sometimes think they have no idea the devastation they can cause families.

“He has promised to remove those who damage His work.”

Fwiw, I don’t see it that way. All of us “damage His work” in one way or another – and I believe the priesthood ban damaged His work greatly. I see it as not letting the top leadership lead “astray” (off the path to Heaven and down to Hell) – that He won’t let their actions and statements and beliefs derail our salvation / exaltation. In a way, it says that we are not accountable for anyone else’s actions – just out own. Worded differently, it means we can’t blame them in the end, since ultimately we are responsible for our own decisions.

I know that’s not the way it has been interpreted by many over the years, but I do believe it – and I think it fits reality better.

Re: #51 – A very smart man once said ‘God does not play dice’.

Today, a lot of very smart men, including Stephen Hawking, believe that God did play dice with the physics of the universe and might still be playing. Given the most recent evidence, Einstein would probably change his mind.

I find that the plan of salvation and the atonement makes more sense to me, if our placement on earth is more random than not. Our genetic strengths and weaknesses certainly appear random. Some of the individual trials, tragedies, and sucesses that we experience alos appear to be random.

Silver Rain, I have lived during the ban. That is a big part of why I see it how I do.

I also have a “son” whose grandmother’s family won’t give her religion even a glance or a sniff because of the ban. She is the unquestioned leader of that extended family, and her word is law (“So let it be written; so let it be done” extreme) – except when it comes to her religion, “cause there ain’t no way I’m going to that racist church”. I believe as a church, in general, we are less racist now than most other Protestant religions, but that persepctive is deeply ingrained, and even her own testimony can’t touch that.

Her example is not isolated. I believe the Church would have exploded in the African-American community years ago if not for the ban – and particularly how long it lasted and the justifications that were promulgated for it. I know we can say that it will be made right in the afterlife, but that is ZERO comfort to those who watched their families disintegrate without the binding blessings of the Gospel in their lives. I believe pain and suffering and the destruction of the family in this life cause “damage to His work” – and all of that happened on a grand scale due to the ban, imo.

I respect you greatly, and I admire your testimony and insight just as greatly, but this is one area where we disagree.

Arthur, I agree with wayfarer that you said that extremely well. When my wife’s aunt was killed by a drunk driver, I couldn’t accept the “it must have been her time” rationalizations. She left behind 7 children, and some of them suffered emotionally for years as a result, so I chose to explain it by saying, “Some idoit got drunk and drove home,” and, “She was distracted and didn’t see that drunk coming as she turned.”

Anything more “arranged” than that just doesn’t resonate with me, although I am fine with others believing otherwise – since I don’t have any pretentions about being able to see the beginning from the end.

And yet, we have scriptures that talk about foreordination. so, while it is not outside the possibility to think that some are in fact chosen to some specific calling or life, I too am a believer in “randomism” Otherwise, God would be a respecter of person, given a better deal to some than others.

#60, I see what you are saying here and I generally agree with it when it comes to personal revelations or guidance for our life and life events, like choosing what to study or who to marry or when to have children etc.

The problems happen when we ask why the church as an organisation does this or that. Like the example of the the disabled stopped from doing the sacrament or the guy in my stake. In those questions if we pray and fast, we are actually asking God to explain for them, on their behalf, when I think they could do that themselves (GA’s) with a simple statement, like they did with Prop 8 (although it wasn’t in answer to any member’s question)

Ray—I think you’re right in that we’ll have to disagree. I suppose the disagreement finds its roots in the perception of what God’s work is and what really damages it. My perspective on that has changed drastically in the last two years.

When meeting this and other such questions, I always have to ask myself first whether or not I believe God is really in control of His work, and second what that work is (immortality and eternal life of man.) I believe that most of the things we see as damaging in mortality really cause little to no eternal damage, and actually end up engendering eternal benefit. I think we understand so little of eternity.

And believe me, I’m fully and painfully aware of how excruciating this doctrine can be to an individual in the midst of something that feels spiritually damaging, whether it is rejection of the gospel by family members because of a departed doctrine, or desperation at knowing that one’s good, eternal aspirations are crumbling around them.

Well said, Sliver Rain. I respect that viewpoint and think we probably are addressing more extreme views espoused by others – not held by each of us personally.

Yes, it has, Jon – but I won’t make Bill happy by mentioning when and by whom.

This is one of the most wearying charges there is, given how forceful the original statement was and how forceful the most recent ones have been.

The justifications have been repudiated, loudly and clearly, as false (as having been spoken from “limited light and understanding” with the council to “forget everything that I and others have said in the past”) – but it’s not worth spending time and energy repeatedly pointing it out here. Continue this all you want; I’m done.

(Bill should be happy now.)

McConkie’s dismissive “forget everything…” remark does not constitute official repudiation of a First Presidency statement.

Ray,

“only that it repudiated “everything” said to **justify** it.”

I think he didn’t actually do that. The man said ‘forget everything he and others said to justify it’ which is very different to an actual ‘repudiation’ don’t ya think? ‘Forget’ being the operative word here.

A false doctrine? LDS prophets have been stating for years that darker skinned people were less valiant. Of course, we all know that it has nothing to do with DNA. The most recent prophet that I am aware of is Spencer W. Kimball.

I laughed when I read that you guys actually think this teaching is a false doctrine. This is proof that the LDS church can change their doctrine and brainwash their members that it never happened. Well, chew on this precious gem…

“Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. a Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. but think of the mercy of god to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn’t the mercy of God marvelous?”

Why is god so marvelous just because he will allow Chinamen to be exalted? Isn’t the gospel supposed to be for everyone anyway? Obviously in Mormonism, if god saves someone of color, what a merciful god he is!!!

“Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood… This Negro, who in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa–if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincerer faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessing of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.” (Race Problems–As They Affect The Church, An address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College level; Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.)

Black people, if they are really good, can go to the celestial kingdom as servants!!! Wow! What a merciful god!

It’s not a false doctrine… It’s a changed doctrine. And that means apostacy!

“This is proof that the LDS church can change their doctrine and brainwash their members that it never happened.”

I hope you find peace and resolution this new year.

Frankly, Mormon411, a comment on a Mormon-themed blog discussing doctrinal change that implies Mormons are brainwashed and don’t know that doctrine has changed just strikes me as more than slightly incongruous. It sends a message of at least some degree of dissonance and unresolved angst – hence my hope you find peace and resolution.

I apologize if I misread your comment, but the sentiment was sincere.

Ok so, the statement that we all have been placed where we are based on our personality and choices in the premortal life I do believe, but I interpret it differently than many people do. I believe our Heavenly Father knows us well and knows where we should be to use our abilities to our fullest potential. I also believe that just because you were born in the US and in the church does not mean you were the best of all in the premortal existance. Possibly I was born in the US and in the church because if I hadn’t been I wouldn’t have been strong enough to find and join the church on my own. Perhaps people born outside of the US and outside of the church are those who are in fact the strongest and most valued in the pre-existance, and it was that strength and value that allows them to persevere where others might not. Perhaps those with a darker skin color than mine have that skin color because they are more worthy and more able to handle the difficulties that can come with it. God did place us where we should be.. it is only us foolish people that place any increased moral value on ourselves over others, especially based on where or when we were born, or any other physical attribute.