NOM

Elder Steven E. Snow was recently interviewed on the Salt Lake Tribune podcast Mormon Land episode 93.

When asked if the Race essay was carefully worded to be ambiguous he said:

With race We kind of tried to balance it on a knife's edge
...
We tried to really balance the best we could on the information we knew without trying to, we just don't know. There are those that say of course that it was revelation to the prophet Brigham Young. And other camps that say it was just a mistake. We just don't have any direction on it. And some feel we threw Brigham Young under the bus. Others say you weren't hard enough on Brigham Young. So it's really, there is just not enough information on that race in the Priesthood.

I tried to transcribe it the best I could but it would probably be best to listen to the audio below.

I have always felt the the Race essay was written so that it could be interpreted in multiple ways. Each person can read it and end up with different conclusions which can be justified depending on how you interpret the essay.

The podcast is here. The quote above is at about 14:25.
https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/

Really??

This sounds like mealy-mouthed excuse making.

These guys claim "direct revelation" from God and this mess is what you get offered?

Over one hundred and thirty years of "No, you can't hold the priesthood and you can't go to the temple cuz yer black and a descendent of Cain" and "It's not our fault, it's just the way God wants it. It's doctrinal!!".........After all that, you guys want to say, "Ooops, we don't have enough information to figure out what went wrong".....????

I don't suppose we could see some effort to "protect the brethren" going on here, could we??

This issue in and of itself tells me the church is a complete fraud.

If only there were a Prophet on Earth - or even 15 of them - who could talk to God and sort all of this out. Then we'd have all the information we need, but as it is, "there is just not enough information on that race in the Priesthood."

Let's be honest: ALL of "The Essays" are intentionally ambiguous, if not downright DISHONEST.

Beyond that, pretty much everything they have taught since correlation took over is ambiguous and dishonest. They have no real answers to real questions, which is why everything leads to:

• You just gotta have faith.
• You'll know all the answers when you are dead.
• Just trust us.

If there were actually any Truth™ to their claims, they would be "shouting from the rooftops." The fact that there is no shouting speaks VOLUMES as to the truthiness of their claims. Top leadership is just a bunch of old, scared cowards, surrounded by an impenetrable bubble of yes-men, over-paid lawyers, and billions of (tithing) dollars to perpetuate their lies.

Shouldn’t his “balance on a knife’s edge” analogy be a template for all church messaging?

They have to appease the old and the young. They have to appease the smart and dumb.
They have to appease the believer and unbeliever.
They have to speak out of both sides of their mouth in order to communicate the will of God.

This pattern will continue.

Ironically enough when it comes to the race and the priesthood essay, the church is a "fence-sitter."

You have got to admin that they are really in a bind. No matter which side of the fence (or knife edge) they come down on there are problems. Do we blame the racism on God or God's mouthpiece? So to avoid that they make it ambiguous and let the member choose which side is less problematic for them.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:09 pm Shouldn’t his “balance on a knife’s edge” analogy be a template for all church messaging?

They have to appease the old and the young. They have to appease the smart and dumb.
They have to appease the believer and unbeliever.
They have to speak out of both sides of their mouth in order to communicate the will of God.

This pattern will continue.

I think you are right that there are a lot of areas where they try to appease different groups of believers at the same time. How many members believe in evolution and how many think it is a great heresy? They refuse to commit to one side or the other, at least since BRM died.

The same thing applies for young earth, death before the fall, global flood, birth control, when the spirit enters the body, translation or other origin of the BOA, how LGBT people fit in the Plan of Happiness(TM), etc...

This is how doctrines shift over time. During a transition period they remain ambiguous or silent so that the older members maintain the old belief while younger ones believe the new updated stuff. When the old ones die out the old beliefs and teachings go with them. This is how polygamy changes happened, blacks and the priesthood, temple changes, garment changes, and I am sure many others.

I see this happening for other things in the future: BOM historicity, LGBT acceptance, Sexism/Ordain Women etc...

You make an excellent point Oblish. Church leaders will weigh their actions carefully and do whatever they think will best protect the Church, whether it is true or not. I'm reminded of the time (Mark 11:28) when the scribes and elders asked Jesus "By what authority do you do these things? Jesus replied by asking them whether John's baptism was of heaven or men? The scribes were stuck because either answer condemned them in front of the people. On the race and priesthood, the modern Church leaders are stuck the same way. Either answer to the question, "Who originated the priesthood ban: Brigham Young or God?" condemns the Church. Church leaders like to act like they seek revelation for answers, but this is one issue where they really don't want a revelation, and so they won't get one.

All the essays are worded to be ambiguous - this way they can say they're trying to be more transparent with the truth while stopping short of creating real doubt and questions in a TBM's mind.

oliblish wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:33 pm Do we blame the racism on God or God's mouthpiece?

Choosing to blame God for the racism of Men has backfired and will continue to backfire for the Church. Besides, it is tantamount to institutional blasphemy.

oliblish wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:33 pm Do we blame the racism on God or God's mouthpiece?

It's all the philosophy of men, mingled with scripture. It's a sad irony that they will throw God under the bus on many issues. The institutional church will apply a very non-specific, collective condemnation of prophets speaking as men. But they really don't want to put Joseph Smith under the bus. Their authority and power comes directly through Joseph's prophetic mantle. The whole reason for their operation and existence comes through him and there is too much risk treating Joseph as anything except a prophet.

The first volume of the "Saints" book had a very fine line to walk in that regard. Now that the minefield of Joseph Smith's life has been crossed, volume 2 of Saints can work with the sterling reputation of Brigham Young and how he established a righteous kingdom in Utah.

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:49 am Really??

This sounds like mealy-mouthed excuse making.

These guys claim "direct revelation" from God and this mess is what you get offered?

Over one hundred and thirty years of "No, you can't hold the priesthood and you can't go to the temple cuz yer black and a descendent of Cain" and "It's not our fault, it's just the way God wants it. It's doctrinal!!".........After all that, you guys want to say, "Ooops, we don't have enough information to figure out what went wrong".....????

I don't suppose we could see some effort to "protect the brethren" going on here, could we??

This issue in and of itself tells me the church is a complete fraud.

What really gets me is the "Over one hundred and thirty years" part - it is not just a BY issue, is an issue for everyone who sustained it and kept it going for that long. More conversations need to start happening about when it is not appropriate to follow the leader...

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:40 am The first volume of the "Saints" book had a very fine line to walk in that regard. Now that the minefield of Joseph Smith's life has been crossed, volume 2 of Saints can work with the sterling reputation of Brigham Young and how he established a righteous kingdom in Utah.

I am truly curious to see how Saints Vol 2 handles Brigham Young because he was an absolute monster of a person and his doctrines and teachings have been widely disavowed in a few key areas... with Joseph Smith they constantly would work around him to protect him as a prophet, but with Brigham I wonder if they will either ignore the elephants in the room or if they'll gently toss him under the bus.

That said the first chapter they released was pretty glowing towards Brigham and I can't see that changing, so it's going to be a really interesting one that I don't know if I can bring myself to read this time around!

jfro18 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:44 pm That said the first chapter they released was pretty glowing towards Brigham and I can't see that changing, so it's going to be a really interesting one that I don't know if I can bring myself to read this time around!

I'm still hoping you do. Reading along with your commentary was the only way I made it through the first book.

oliblish wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:33 am I have always felt the the Race essay was written so that it could be interpreted in multiple ways. Each person can read it and end up with different conclusions which can be justified depending on how you interpret the essay.

Just listened to part 2 of Anthony Miller's MS interview. His faith crisis started in a very similar way to my own. Those magical words... "the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past."

jfro18 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:44 pm That said the first chapter they released was pretty glowing towards Brigham and I can't see that changing, so it's going to be a really interesting one that I don't know if I can bring myself to read this time around!

We will see how the book possibly remains glowing about Brigham once John D. Lee gets involved with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. That should be a masterclass in minefield tapdancing. Perhaps the reader will simply have to be distracted by these weird references to "Adam-God" doctrine in the veil ceremony in the temple.