Mormons arguing that “Mormon” is as derogatory as the N-word

[Kishkumen]

I think our view of prophets is heavily influenced by the Old Testament. From Deuteronomy 18 (KJV):

15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

16 According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

17 And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

And from Deuteronomy 13: (KJV)

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

So, a prophet is a person who purports to speak for God. But the God has to be Yaweh, or the prophet must be killed. And the test for a true prophet of Yaweh is that what he says in the name of the Lord comes true.

That's pretty much the notion of "prophet" that has been adopted by the COJCOLDS. Nelson purports to speak for God, so he is a prophet. The tricky part is that, in contrast to Old Testament prophets, modern LDS prophets don't prophecy much. They don't make testable predictions by Old Testament standards. That puts them in sharp contrast to Smith and Young.

I don't think "decency" was a concept that applied to Old Testament prophets. Weren't there children torn apart by a bear for making fun of a bald prophet? I suspect that the notion of evaluating the "decency" of a prophet is a modern one.

From my perspective, there are no "true" prophets, as there is no god to speak for. So I guess I have to think about the functional aspects of prophets: how do people who purport to speak for a god affect the society in which they live? So, from my perspective, Nelson is a prophet. So are Julie Rowe, Denver Snuffer and the modern prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation.

Great stuff, RI. I agree that the Bible provides some kind of template for the LDS prophet, but, as you recognize, the fit is not perfect. Prophets were not always leaders of the community in the way Moses was. I think the LDS prophet is more like Moses than other prophets later on in Israelite history.

[Marcus]

What specific set of circumstances has led you to form the opinion that Brigham Young was “relatively decent”?

I've been following this discussion re what it means for Brigham Young to be considered 'relatively decent,' and I have found it fascinating.

Coincidentally, today on reddit someone posted an excerpt by Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses. Because of the discussion here, I followed the link and found this:

Here are Apostles and Prophets who are destined to be exalted with the Gods, to become rulers in the kingdoms of our Father, to become equal with the Father and the Son, and will you let your affections be unduly placed on anything this side that kingdom and glory? If you do, you disgrace your calling and Priesthood. The very moment that persons in this Church suffer their affections to be immoderately placed upon an object this side the celestial kingdom, they disgrace their profession and calling.

When you love your wives and children, are fond of your horses, your carriages, your fine houses, your goods and chattels, or anything of an earthly nature, before your affections become too strong, wait until you and your family are sealed up unto eternal lives, and you know they are yours from that time henceforth and forever.

I will now ask the sisters, do you believe that you are worthy of any greater love than you bestow upon your children? Do you believe that you should be beloved by your husbands and parents any further than you acknowledge and practice the principle of eternal lives? Every person who understands this principle would answer in a moment, “Let no being’s affections be placed upon me any further than mine are on eternal principles—principles that are calculated to endure and exalt me, and bring me up to be an heir of God and a joint heir with Jesus Christ.” This is what every person who has a correct understanding would say.

Owing to the weaknesses of human nature you often see a mother mourn upon the death of her child, the tears of bitterness are found upon her cheeks, her pillow is wet with the dews of sorrow, anguish, and mourning for her child, and she exclaims, “O that my infant were restored to me,” and weeps day and night. To me such conduct is unwise, for until that child returned to its Father, was it worthy of your fullest love? No, for it was imperfect...

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/c ... ses3/id/15

[bolding added by me, to emphasize BY's words that 'objects' shouldn't be valued or found 'worthy' of love until a guarantee of eternal ownership by a male and the object's 'perfection' are secured.]

I'm adding this to the pile of monstrous behaviors exhibited by Brigham Young. He may have accomplished things, but in my opinion, he was not 'decent,' relatively or otherwise.

Just imagine, what different outcomes would his accomplishments have had, had he actually been a more decent human being?

[Kishkumen]

I'm adding this to the pile of monstrous behaviors exhibited by Brigham Young. He may have accomplished things, but in my opinion, he was not 'decent,' relatively or otherwise.

Just imagine, what different outcomes would his accomplishments have had, had he actually been a more decent human being?

Yes, it would have been wonderful had he been more decent. I don't care for Brigham Young. And, while I don't agree with the quoted ideas, they seem to be pretty run-of-the-mill religious ideas of the time. Are they "monstrous"? No, not really. My interest would be in what they actually mean, regardless of my disposition to disagree with them. You seem to be reading "object" in a way that Brigham did not intend, and you are also rightly put off by the gendered slant to the entire thing. I think there are worthwhile questions regarding the theological content of the whole. What, for example, is the "full measure of love"? Although I am uncomfortable with the implications of this discourse, i.e., where it seems to be heading, I wouldn't call it monstrous, even though I don't agree with it.

And it is not surprising that we would not agree with it, not because it is so morally debased, so much as it is the product of a mindset we are far removed from and inclined to disagree with. I think it would be monstrous to go back to it, which is what many in this country seem to be of a mind to do, but recognizing it for what it is in its time and place does not lead me to condemn utterly the speaker so much as to feel grateful that we no longer live in a place where we feel we must suffer such ideas in silence.

[huckelberry]

I'm adding this to the pile of monstrous behaviors exhibited by Brigham Young. He may have accomplished things, but in my opinion, he was not 'decent,' relatively or otherwise.

Just imagine, what different outcomes would his accomplishments have had, had he actually been a more decent human being?

Yes, it would have been wonderful had he been more decent. I don't care for Brigham Young. And, while I don't agree with the quoted ideas, they seem to be pretty run-of-the-mill religious ideas of the time. Are they "monstrous"? No, not really. My interest would be in what they actually mean, regardless of my disposition to disagree with them. You seem to be reading "object" in a way that Brigham did not intend, and you are also rightly put off by the gendered slant to the entire thing. I think there are worthwhile questions regarding the theological content of the whole. What, for example, is the "full measure of love"? Although I am uncomfortable with the implications of this discourse, i.e., where it seems to be heading, I wouldn't call it monstrous, even though I don't agree with it.

And it is not surprising that we would not agree with it, not because it is so morally debased, so much as it is the product of a mindset we are far removed from and inclined to disagree with. I think it would be monstrous to go back to it, which is what many in this country seem to be of a mind to do, but recognizing it for what it is in its time and place does not lead me to condemn utterly the speaker so much as to feel grateful that we no longer live in a place where we feel we must suffer such ideas in silence.

Kishkumen, reading that BY quote I might get a glimpse of how you see it as reflecting common ideas. First I am hit with the sense that I cannot imagine it coming from any where but Utah in the second half 19th century. It is clearly about why people should give second place to common feelings in obedience to polygamy. I cannot imagine anyplace on the planet outside of Utah, or Deseret, those opening words of equality with the Father and Son would be uttered.

One could see this as a peculiar take on a more common theme. In religion people were concerned with how worldly interests or attachments could interfere with spiritual growth.There was a good variety of ways people might see this. I find amusement in remembering the leader of a college helping the underground railroad advised against the use of mustard in meals, too much sensory stimulation.

//That was Finney at Oberlin college

[Kishkumen]

Matthew 6:33
New International Version
33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

[I Have Questions]

Thanks, that's illuminating. You seem to treat "decency" as something of a flexible standard. I'm not sure I agree. I think "decency" is a measure of a person's behaviour despite circumstances, rather than a measure of them taking circumstances into account. Let me press you a little further. Do you see Ismail Haniyeh as a relatively decent man? Given that the Palestinians have seen a lot of violence directed at them, they are fugitive in their own lands, their top leaders have been murdered over the years, and they are trying to exist in dangerous territory shared by Israelis, who are sometimes hostile. Rough circumstances. So is the leader of Hamas a "relatively decent" man in your opinion? If not, what is the difference between him and Brigham Young?

There are bad people who do have some decency. Decency isn't necessarily an absolute standard. You have heard, I would bet, the phrase, "s/he hasn't a shred of decency!" Not a shred. Which means it is possible to have a shred. I think BY had more than just a shred, but I would place him far below the decency of Jimmy Carter, for example. And Jimmy Carter did some really bad things as president, things that, taken on their own, would be hard to call decent at all. I refrain from commenting on the Gaza situation.

I think there’s a difference between someone doing something decent every now and again, and someone who is decent. Brigham Young may have done a decent thing every now and again. But other people of his time being as bad as he, bad things happening to him and his etc does not excuse him from standards of decency, and in my eyes make Brigham Young a “relatively decent” person. I see a difference between a “relatively decent act” and a “relatively decent person”.

[Kishkumen]

I think there’s a difference between someone doing something decent every now and again, and someone who is decent. Brigham Young may have done a decent thing every now and again. But other people of his time being as bad as he, bad things happening to him and his etc does not excuse him from standards of decency, and in my eyes make Brigham Young a “relatively decent” person. I see a difference between a “relatively decent act” and a “relatively decent person”.

OK. I can see why you think that. To me truly decent acts spring from some decency.

[Philo Sofee]

I think there’s a difference between someone doing something decent every now and again, and someone who is decent. Brigham Young may have done a decent thing every now and again. But other people of his time being as bad as he, bad things happening to him and his etc does not excuse him from standards of decency, and in my eyes make Brigham Young a “relatively decent” person. I see a difference between a “relatively decent act” and a “relatively decent person”.

OK. I can see why you think that. To me truly decent acts spring from some decency.

That's decent.....

[I Have Questions]

I think there’s a difference between someone doing something decent every now and again, and someone who is decent. Brigham Young may have done a decent thing every now and again. But other people of his time being as bad as he, bad things happening to him and his etc does not excuse him from standards of decency, and in my eyes make Brigham Young a “relatively decent” person. I see a difference between a “relatively decent act” and a “relatively decent person”.

OK. I can see why you think that. To me truly decent acts spring from some decency.

Ted Bundy committed several truly decent acts in helping talk people out of committing suicide. Saddam Hussein enacted programmes for 100% primary school attendance and programmes to improve the populations literacy. Are Ted and Saddam “relatively decent”?

What “truly decent acts” did Brigham Young do?

[Kishkumen]

Bundy and Hussein must have had a shred of decency.