Shortcomings in living prophets?

[JohnnyLingo]

I try not to take inventory of others' sins, and try to focus on my own. But I would guess that the members of the 12 and first presidency struggle with the same mortal sins that others do: selfishness, pride, egocentricism (which displays itself as racism, sexism, etc), lust, etc. I don't know anybody who doesn't struggle with those.

Of course they do. But I believe it's on a whole different level than where I am.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Nearly every American who was McKay's age in the 50's and 60's was racist.

I disagree with this. The 1964 Civil Rights Act made Jim Crow illegal under federal law. It was enacted by a democraticic congress and signed into law by a democratic president duly elected by the people. Americans went on to elect a democratic president to another term and both houses remained democratic until the 1980's. My point is that clearly this was the mandate of the people, and received positively by the vast majority of Americans. Kennedy sent federal troops to Alabama and other places to enforce integration of schools in about 1964. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, was reelected, and Johnson's one positive legacy is further civil rights enforcement and legislation. Nixon only perpetuated this process.

The Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. While the Supreme Court is not popularly elected, its Chief Justice, Earl Warren, was a republican from California appointed by Eisenhower. This landmark opinion was not controversial, like Roe, was hailed positively by most educated people, and started a series of Supreme Court opinions in quick succession finally enforcing the Bill of Rights as it originally should have been. Johnson appointed a black man, Thurgood Marshall, to the Supreme Court in 1967.

Clearly racism was not the norm in the 1950's and 60's, and was considered imoral by enlightened people, hundreds of millions of Americans, by 1960. LDS Church leaders were way behind the tide of racial enlightenment. Institutional racism did not exist in other major religions, and, in fact, outside the south religions led the abolitionist movement and later condemnation of Jim Crow. And it should not have taken until 1978 to abolish the priesthood ban. By 1978 many of our major cities had black mayors. And then for years afterward you had apostles talking about a white Jesus visiting American aborigines, and Nephites being white and delightsome.

Racism was wrong and represented moral deficit in the 1950's and 60's. I don't think it's right to minimize it. And we're talking about a religion for pete's sake.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Clearly racism was not the norm in the 1950's and 60's, and was considered imoralal by enlightened people, hundreds of millions of Americans, by 1960. LDS Church leaders were way behind the tide of racial enlightenment.

I overstated by saying "nearly every", but I think his views on race were fairly normal for a man his age during his time. Here's a bit from the McKay book page105:

"By today's standards, David O. McKay's views on civil rights are jolting; yet in the context of his own time and place, his views were mainstream. He definitely was not "progressive" on the issue, even if measured by the low standards that would have earned such a label during his lifetime. On the one hand, he never advocated legislation or behavior that would worsen the status of blacks within the US; indeed, his apparent desire was to preserve the legal status quo. Yet he also never advocated legal remedies to segregation and discrimination. He was, at best, a very conservative moderate."

[RockyBalboa]

Several people on this board will be the first to point out their faults and place their own opinions and "knowledge" above the prophets.

The type of arrogance where they feel their opinions and political leanings ought to trump the words and advice of these men.

We see that arrogance on display here on a daily basis.

[All-American]

"Above" the prophets? As in, I trust my judgement to be more reliable than his?

I don't see that sentiment being expressed here by anybody who still raises their hand to the square every April and October. I see the not-so-radical idea that they are, in fact, mortal men and can be prone to error, and the prophetic advocation to confirm the words of the prophet with revelation from God that may or may not stem from their fallability. I don't see anybody who believes that they are prophets and nevertheless don't take their message seriously.

That's not arrogance. That's disbelief-- which they are entitled to.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Nearly every American who was McKay's age in the 50's and 60's was racist. I'm sure I would have been as well. He wasn't progressive when it came to race and civil rights, but I don't hold it against him. In fact, McKay is my favorite prophet if it's ok to have a favorite. I think most of us are far more comfortable than you appear to be with the notion that God calls men and not perfect beings as his leaders. They do their best and God is pleased with that.

Oh, and spare us the "unresolved sins" line. Nobody here has said that.

It seems like Congress in the 60s was not racist, enough to get the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. So maybe God speaks to the US President and US Congress first, then to the LDS leaders 14 years later.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by hyrum

It seems like Congress in the 60s was not racist, enough to get the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. So maybe God speaks to the US President and US Congress first, then to the LDS leaders 14 years later.

I'm curious Hyrum what your church was doing regarding civil rights in the 50's and 60's? While most churches gave the priesthood earlier than 1978, I wonder how many were meeting in integrated congregations as equals. Christianity as a whole was on the wrong side of the civil rights issue for a long time.

[Hazzard]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Of course they do. But I believe it's on a whole different level than where I am.

I know you are just baiting for fun so I have resisted jumping in to the fray, but I'll address this one ...

Why do you think the Apostles are more righteous than you? I think you sell yourself short and oversell the Apostles. I'm being serious here. The main difference between the Apostles and the typical active church member trying his/her best to live the gospel and getting it right most of the time is that they were called of God to be Apostles and we weren't. Most of them happen to be extraordinarily bright men who were highly successful in their careers and who have served in many positions of leadership in the church, but if the high local leaders I know and love (stake presidents, mission presidents, bishops, etc. who likewise have successful careers and are great men overall) are anything like the ones who eventually become Apostles, I am not surprised at all that there would be a fair amount of racism, pride, lust, jealousy, etc. at the highest levels of the church hierarchy.

The difference between you and I -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- seems to be that I'm OK with it and you aren't. SoCalCoug's points are valid -- if it's plausible that God would allow the blessings of the gospel to be taken away from all of His children for thousands of years, it's plausible that He would allow certain groups of his children to be kept from the gospel for a variety of reasons even when there are Prophets on the earth. I don't pretend to understand the full magnitude of the interplay between agency and God's desire and ability to turn the course of human events in spite of agency, but based on the many apostasy's and the horrible things that have happened to humans over the past thousands of years, it appears for the most part that He is quite willing to let people do whatever they want to do. In fact, (assuming God would have preferred to provide blacks with the Priesthood all along, as Joseph Smith apparently did) allowing His Prophets to prevent a race of people from having the full blessings of the gospel for a few generations is, in the grand scheme of things, on the happy side of the scale of unfortunate things that God has allowed to happen to His children.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I'm curious Hyrum what your church was doing regarding civil rights in the 50's and 60's? While most churches gave the priesthood earlier than 1978, I wonder how many were meeting in integrated congregations as equals. Christianity as a whole was on the wrong side of the civil rights issue for a long time.

Well I have changed churches, so I guess you have to ask which one. The one now has fairly autonomous leadership, so I would have to ask a really old timer. I was raised Catholic and, generally the Catholic Church is ahead of the curve on social issues, though I don't know, specifically on that bill. JFK, a Catholic, started the ball rolling, for what its worth.

That is not the point, however. The LDS church claims to have a direct line to God. I belong to a church that is run by group of elders (all of them significantly more than 19 years old) that does not make such claims. So not even prodding by the example of law in their home country was even enough to open that line to the correct answer for 14 years. If there was truly a direct line to God I think they should have a had a leadership role in getting such measures passed, rather than lagging by half a generation.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by hyrum

That is not the point, however. The LDS church claims to have a direct line to God. I belong to a church that is run by group of elders (all of them significantly more than 19 years old) that does not make such claims. So not even prodding by the example of law in their home country was even enough to open that line to the correct answer for 14 years. If there was truly a direct line to God I think they should have a had a leadership role in getting such measures passed, rather than lagging by half a generation.

After 50 plus pages of threads on the topic I assure you that I'm well aware of the point. I think that I've made my opinion clear on the matter, have I not?