I’m a product of my time. How could I not be? At 5, I learned “Eenie meenie miney mo” with words I would not use today, since I’m now a product of the 21st century, and not the 1960’s. If somebody found an old recording of me in 1962, saying the above nursery rhyme, I would be embarrassed, but probably be excused because of my age, and it being “a different time”.
The go-to argument from current Church leaders when old quotes and deeds of former Church leaders come up that seem harsh, or clash with our modern understanding, is that they are a “product of their time”. This was recently in the news with a talk that Elder Cook gave to BYU, where he said Brigham Young “said things about race that fall short of our standards today”, and “some of his beliefs and words reflected the culture of his time.”.
What if we take Elder Cook’s words as truth. Brigham Young’s hateful teachings about race were caused by the attitudes of the general population around him. But if we also accept that he was a prophet, it implies that God allowed his prophet to teach hateful false doctrines and claim that they were eternal laws.
So what does that mean for current prophets? Can we have any confidence that prophets today are not teaching hateful doctrines that are caused by the general attitudes of their day? By “their day,” I don’t mean 2020. I mean the 1950’s when their attitudes were set. Does God allow his teachings to get mixed up with the awful opinions that are truly damaging?
So lets do a thought experiment. Lets say it is 2120, 100 years from today. What current teachings and understandings from 2020 will be rejected at this future date and explained away as just the culture of their time?
I’ll go first. If gay marriage is fully accepted by the church in this future year, I would say most of Elder Oak’s conference talks will fall into the “product of his time”, or maybe even “he was speaking as a man”
What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
The female prophet of the day will be willing to explain he was not speaking as a prophet on either issue, but as a conservative old man. Prophets will be in the prime of life, and selected by common consent for a 10 year term, from the Apostles, 50% female.
Prophets are not only people of their times, they speak to those of their times.
We can learn a lot from reading what the Old Testament actually says when understanding those God speaks to.
I look forward to reading Bishop Bill”s Sunday morning article. I ssw the same meme this week and very glad that he is bringing up this point. Thank you for your time Bill.
We are all products of our time and environment. A purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ is to overcome the “weakness of the world and mankind”. For me the true gospel is love, charity, kindness, service, etc. To produce a beatiful garden of flowers a little bit of fertiziler is helpful. However to distinguish themselves, the religions have added on layer of layer of manure, better know as policies and procedures/commandmemts. The Law eventually becomes what is worshiped and the true gospel is neglected. Many orthodox believers of that faith falls into this; and if not then they are viewed as a cultural Jew/Muslim/Catholic/Mormon/etc or better known as a nonbeliever. The beautiful flowerbed then suffocates and dies under the manure. But the cultural members can have a beutiful garden by applying just a touch of fertilizer.
So be it 1870 or 2170 the gospel of Jesus Christ followers will be kind and love their neighbor. Those who overrely on orthodox clergy will not have as beutiful of a garden and achieve their fullest potential.
Only when it contradicts their then current “doctrine”. Or, is it yours? Now?
Just gotta love the LDS Church’s gospel smorgasbord. The leadership decides what’s there, and it changes frequently.
The “Restoration” of the gospel is a long gone hiss and a byword.
By 2120, any tenets of the church viewed as non-progressive will be subject to “re-interpretation”. Scripture that supports them will be deemed a product of its time and therefore re-evaluated. The process will move more swiftly if teachings can be labeled offensive in some way.
Members who do not “get with the program” will be dealt with just as harshly as those who currently reject the Old way of thinking. Their opinions will be suppressed and their positions of leadership will be withdrawn.
The Church will be in a constant state of struggle, and one side or the other will reject any revelation from the Prophet.
BTW, these are not psychotic speculations from yours truly. All of this has already occurred in the church I was formerly in.
IMO, this might be the biggest issue the Church faces — because it sits at the heart of so many of the controversies in the Church. Ben Spackman framed the issue pretty well in his Gospel Doctrine blog entry treating the book of Philemon (and the issue of slavery in the scriptures). He quotes Ken Sparks as saying, “Modern Christianity maintains that the owning and trading of human beings as chattel is immoral and unacceptable in the eyes of God. How is it possible that this modern theological judgment, now so putatively unassailable and certain, was not reached and preached explicitly by the biblical writers themselves, who wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit and so presumably knew —or should have known, it seems— that slavery was an abominable practice that dishonored human bearers of the divine image?- ” (from “God’s Words in Human Words”). He then goes on to ask, “What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman?” (https://benspackman.com/2019/11/01/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/ )
It seems that conservative members of the Church get really tired of dealing with these historic issues. Elder Cook in the Face to Face the accompanied the roll out of “Saints”, when asked about polygamy, explained that the Brethren are unsure why it was practiced but they see it as a historical thing and are looking forward rather than backward. Many conservative members seem tired of discussing the Priesthood and Temple ban because it is in the past. I think these become good case studies for understanding our “model of scripture and prophets and revelation”. Until we can adequately understand how these controversial issues were dealt with in scripture and since the beginning of the Restoration, we will continue to spin our wheels around controversies (like LGBT issues and women’s issues) where we cannot definitively say what is cultural “product of our time” and what represents God’s eternal truths.
The problem with excusing things as “a product of their time” is that there were plenty of abolitionists around at the time of Brigham Young. He may have come by his racism honestly (as we all still do), but it is not as though there was no one out there questioning it at the time and no way he could have reconsidered that position. We just use that excuse because otherwise we struggle with the “God will never let his prophet lead people astray” concept, which I really don’t believe.
Likewise, with respect to gay marriage we’ve had a good 40 years to watch and see and learn and change. So I don’t much excuse Pres Oaks as a product of his time where there are so many, including of his age, who have re-evaluated their prejudice as they’ve grown and learned and listened. I get that might be harder the older you get but it’s certainly not impossible and I’d expect a lot more introspection and humility from him.
So maybe the official line will be “product of his time” or “speaking as a man” so that we can remember him fondly and name buildings after him but speaking as a contemporary I don’t really think he deserves that kind of excuse.
Mark Gibson raises a good point and I don’t really know the answer. I have really changed the way I view “authority” and prophets (or rather, here, presidents of the church which shouldn’t be conflated with prophets). I can see real value in respecting authority and the organization and coherence and cohesion and stickiness it can bring to a church. Liberal churches really seem to flounder and I can see where Mark would be frustrated with what he’s seen happen. But I also think overrelying on authority is incredibly dangerous and the “prophets will never lead you astray” line of thinking is pretty harmful IMO. I really don’t know where that balance should be struck, truly.
JD’s post yesterday, “Chernobyl and the Reality of Glasnost” is relevant to today’s discussion. It’s worth reading if you haven’t already. The implications are sobering and suggest the real issues of following orders without introspection, of building authoritarian institutions rather than authoritative or democratic institutions. We are taught at church that we can choose our actions but not the consequences. This is true for institutions as well as individuals. The consequences are real.
The problem encountered in my former church is that changes were proposed (conferences were legislative based with majority rule) not thinking of improvement but eliminating the current belief; or just change for change’s sake.
One person commented that a traditional belief was offensive to people outside the church. I responded that it was more a case of it being offensive to members of like thinking. “Because you don’t believe it, you don’t want the church to believe it” was my answer.
BTW, their efforts to change coincide with the counter-culture 60s; along with the rest of society.
@Math Nerd: Thank you for the plug!
@Bishop Bill:Great post! I’ll include a chunk of my post in this comment, because it perfectly aligns with this topic. It is also how I would respond to E Cook and everyone else echoing him.
“Recent discussions in the public sphere have included Pres. Brigham Young’s actions during his life. Brigham Young was a complex individual, often proclaiming opposing views on topics depending on the day. He was particularly full of contradictions in his public statements on slavery. Brigham Young actively supported the act legalizing slavery in Utah, and Elder Orson Pratt (apostle and territorial legislator) actively opposed it – calling the legalization of slavery in a place where it didn’t already exist “enough to cause the angels in heaven to blush.” E Pratt argued in favor of black male voting rights as well, which Pres Young strongly rejected ““[We] just [as well] make [a] bill here for mules to vote as Negroes [or] Indians.” The Utah Act had specific clauses which improved the treatment of slaves, required some schooling, and prevented ownership of the children of the slave. (While the slavery portion was repealed, the anti-miscegenation parts remained until 1963.) On the day after the bill passed, Pres Young stated “I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term. It is abused. I am opposed to abusing that which God decreed, to take a blessing and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain as servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children and their compassion should reach over them and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that human feeling necessary to be shown to mortal beings of the human species. Under these circumstances their blessings in life are greater in portion than those that have to provide the bread and dinner for them.” [fn19]
When people talk about this, they often say that the leaders were “a product of their time” and reject any condemnation of Pres Young’s choices as “presentism.” This approach rejects the nuances of history, as many in Congress (Whigs and then Republicans) and E. Orson Pratt himself were also “products of the [same] time.” They repeatedly defined slavery as evil and they fought for its rejection. Pres. Brigham Young and the Utah Territorial Legislature had choices, and they ultimately decided to legalize slavery in Utah. It is a rejection of nuance and an example of binary thinking to say that Brigham Young did nothing wrong as much it is to say that he did nothing right.”
People are not binary – just one thing or another. History – “their time” of which we always talk about, was not binary either, even in 1852 in Utah Territory.
My question I would ask E Cook and everyone else essentially “absolving” Pres Young of racist statements and pro-slavery lobbying would be:
When did our modern prophets receive revelation that slavery was wrong?
Thanks for the tip re the Chernobyl post – agree, super relevant to this discussion as well.
Richard Rogers wrote in 1949:
You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear
You’ve got to be taught from year to year
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught
You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made
And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade
You’ve got to be carefully taught
You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late
Before you are six or seven or eight
To hate all the people your relatives hate
You’ve got to be carefully taught
As a preschool teacher I’ve seen this. The question is what are we going to do about it once we recognize how we were shaped by institutions including the church and popular culture. Don’t Jesus’ 2 great commandments give us all the guidance we need?
Alice. Great song/good message from “South Pacific.” Oscar Hammerstein II wrote these lyrics. Rogers wrote the tune.
By 2100, the greatest embarrassment will be the Church’s denial-ridden, almost nonexistent response to climate change. Suffering – which could have been prevented with revelation – will be everywhere. Millions, maybe billions, will die. And we could have prevented it, but didn’t have the revelatory power to do so. If we, as a Church, don’t rise to this occasion, it will be our deepest failure and regret as a people. Our confidence in revelation may not survive such a cataclysm.
Also ran: ideas that have not kept up with advancements in human genetic science: debunked racist pseudoscience (including portrayals of Jesus as European), BOM historicity & native peoples, sexual identity or orientation as “choice,” and adam-and-eve literalism / literal creationism.
To the present minority of Church members who are science-literate, this is all very clear. In 100 years, the majority of Church members will be science-literate. Or the Church will be irrelevant. I prefer the former.
“Oscar Hammerstein II wrote these lyrics. Rogers wrote the tune”
Oops!.
…”absolving” Pres Young of racist statements and pro-slavery lobbying…
Elder Cook isn’t doing this. It isn’t necessary.
It also isn’t necessary to hate Brigham Young because of this matter, and to reject everything connected to him.
I think Elder Cook is choosing the charitable way.
Okay, let the downvotes begin…
@ji I don’t see anyone suggesting that we should reject everything connected to Brigham Young. I think we are perfectly capable of recognizing many good things he did while at the same time acknowledging that this was a blind spot of his that had significant negative ramifications for many years. Because he had the position of authority that he did, unfortunately his racism had a wider impact than most people’s and I think we can acknowledge that instead of making excuses for him.
First a couple of thoughts on the landscape:
1 – In 100 years there will be no Babyboomers or Millenials alive. These are the two largest demographics for those that identify as religious. Already “nones” is the largest single “affiliation” – or non-affiliation.
2 – Many currently think of top church leadership as being 30 – 40 years behind the current culture. This, I think, is a valid observation. I would add that culture is changing at a more rapid rate than the leadership. I think the gap will continue to grow.
So in 100 years, just being a religious person is likely to put one in an extreme minority. Being a Mormon will be a slice of that shrinking slice. The culture gap? Will it be 50 years – 70 years – 90 years?
In 100 years, the church will be viewed as irrelevant or as a cult (I don’t ever use *cult* to describe the church now – but in 100 years, I think people will view any high-demand religion as such).
I’ve read on W and T before that the church’s mission isn’t to be relevant. But if it isn’t relevant, it will not grow and will likely continue to shrink in the first world.
As Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heshal wrote (in 1955):
“It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid.
When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion—its message becomes meaningless.”
The Church in 2120 will be a lot different. The current membership growth is stagnant in the developed world and expanding in developing countries. Currently, half of the Church membership is in developing countries. This membership trend is likely to continue unabated, and is going to have an exciting affect on Church priorities, policies, and doctrine (at least those that are emphasized). Hopefully, this will be a slow death to the Church’s entwinement with the Republican party. The Church leadership will be much more diverse and be forced to think globally.
The Church in 2120 will be a lot different. The current membership growth is stagnant in the developed world and expanding in developing countries. Currently, half of the Church membership is in developing countries. This membership trend is likely to continue unabated, and is going to have an exciting affect on Church priorities, policies, and doctrine (at least those that are emphasized). Hopefully, this will be a slow death to the Church’s entwinement with the Republican party. The Church leadership will be much more diverse and be forced to think globally.
I should add – what bugs me about the way we approach unsavory bits of church history is that we don’t seem to learn anything from it. We make off-hand references to people making mistakes but not any mention of how we are still capable of that to any willingness to question whether perhaps our view of women or LGBT folks might similarly be “products of our time.”
Agree we don’t need to spend a ton of time bashing Brigham Young as thats not particularly productive – but we should also apologize for the bad fruits of his racism, and think deeply and speak candidly about what our blindspots might be today. And we don’t do that.
First a couple of thoughts on the landscape:
1 – In 100 years there will be no Babyboomers or Millennials alive. These are the two largest demographics for those that identify as religious. Already “nones” is the largest single “affiliation” – or non-affiliation.
2 – Many currently think of top church leadership as being 30 – 40 years behind the current culture. This, I think, is a valid observation. I would add that culture is changing at a more rapid rate than the leadership. I think the gap will continue to grow.
So in 100 years, just being a religious person is likely to put one in an extreme minority. Being a Mormon will be a slice of that shrinking slice. The culture gap? Will it be 50 years – 70 years – 90 years?
In 100 years, the church will be viewed as irrelevant or as a cult (I don’t ever use *cult* to describe the church now – but in 100 years, I think people will view any high-demand religion as such).
I’ve read on W and T before that the church’s mission isn’t to be relevant. But if it isn’t relevant, it will not grow and will likely continue to shrink in the first world.
As Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heshal wrote (in 1955):
“It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid.”
Weren’t prophets supposed to morally transcend their times? If they were products of their times then, what does that say of our leaders now?
Elisa,
I am sorry for any harm that Brigham Young caused you, or anyone else.
I hope others will forgive us for any wrongs we may commit.
@ji 3:25
When people say “[He] was a product of his time” I submit that what they actually mean, whether conscious of it or not, is that “they couldn’t have known/didn’t know any better.” E Cook’s words exactly were “some of his beliefs and words reflected the culture of his time.” The problem with this is that it paints a monoculture that just didn’t exist back then, even in Utah Territory in 1852. Individuals often accordingly reject any condemnation of Pres Young’s choices as “presentism.” This approach rejects the nuances of history, as many in Congress (Whigs and then Republicans) and E. Orson Pratt in the Q12 himself were also “products of the [same] time.” They repeatedly defined slavery as evil and they fought for its rejection. Pres. Brigham Young and the Utah Territorial Legislature had choices, and they ultimately decided to legalize slavery in Utah when it wasn’t legal before. It is a rejection of nuance and an example of binary thinking to say that Brigham Young did nothing wrong as much it is to say that he did nothing right.
Binary thinking doesn’t paint a great picture of anyone, particularly Prophets of the restoration. I agree with Elisa – we haven’t really had a discussion around learning from “unsavory bits of church history.” Brigham Young was full of contradictions in his public statements on slavery. In June, 1851 he publicly stated in a sermon: “shall we lay a foundation for Negro slavery? No, God forbid!” Six months later he had been appointed Utah Territorial Governor and stated: “my own feelings are that no property can or should exist in slaves” while encouraging the Utah Territorial legislature to adopt a “benevolent” indentured servitude to regulate Utah’s (small but visible) black population.Just two weeks later, again addressing the legislature, he said he was “a firm believer in slavery” and urged legalization of the “Peculiar Institution.”
-Bringhurst, Newell Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People Within Mormonism, 2nd ed.
I think a very helpful discussion would be for E Cook not to simply say “some of his beliefs and words reflected the culture of his time,” but to lay out the historical details of the situation in Utah territory, mention that members of the Q12 (E Orson Pratt specifically) found slavery abhorrent, and directly argued against Pres. Young’s positions on legalizing slavery and on the racial inferiority of Black individuals preventing them from voting. Notwithstanding that information, Pres. Young chose wrongly and advocated for the codification within the law of ownership of another human being, until the slavery portion was repealed by Congress.
The reason why I ask the question: “When did our modern prophets receive revelation that slavery was wrong?” is because that it was members of society that told them that it was wrong. The Lord allowed the Prophet to advocate for wickedness, and society was the ultimate correcting force in this situation. A larger but similar discussion could be had on the racism of many apostles and prophets up and through 1978. They explicitly labeled the elements of society that fought against such racism as “contrary to church doctrine.”
Ultimately the discussion is not helpful if one refuses to label certain choices of Pres Young as wrong.
@ji, that really wasn’t my point? Not asking for you to apologize? Just disagree with your characterization of this discussion.
If the Church can use the “product of his time” excuse as a justification for a prophet to make significant errors, why can we as members of the Church make the same excuse for getting caught up in worldly “sins” that seem to attract so much attention among the membership? It’s funny to me that a typical faithful member holds members today more accountable for their “sins” like drinking beer or looking at porn than previous prophets for some of their follies that I won’t mention but are well known.
I have a comment that has been languishing in purgatory (moderation) for several hours. It is benign and possibly brilliant. Is there no proxy that can release it from its prison so that it can move on toward its eternal destiny? [Admin edit: Done.]
It is odd to see an LDS leader invoke the “product of his time” defense because, in general, the Church avoids using historical context like the plague. You don’t see much discussion of historical context, for example, when explaining the contents of D&C 89 (the Word of Wisdom) or D&C 87 (the War Prophecy, highlighting South Carolina) or the Law of Consecration or a hundred other Mormon doctrines.
Thinking creatively, I suppose it might be possible now to quote Elder Cook in order to use such historical context explanations in Sunday School or over the pulpit. If it can explain why Brigham Young believed what he did about race (but we don’t have to), it can be used to explain why Joseph believed what he did about a lot of things (but we don’t have to). It can be used to explain why Pres. Nelson believes what he believes about a lot of things (but we don’t have to).
Prophets are the “product of their times” and they speak what they believe to be the word of God. When history vindicates them, they are right. When history repudiates them, they are wrong.
The “product of his time” argument is certainly weak and filled with lots of hypocrisy. We have been taught from the beginning that “Prophets always speak the truth”, and that “Men may change, but God’s laws always remain the same”. It is time we strip away the false pretense and view the leader of the church for what he is: a Man. Attempting to do what he feels is best (hopefully under the inspiration of God). Sometimes he gets it wrong. As a corollary, I have always felt that God has had a keen interest in me succeeding as a Father and Husband. I have always attempted to discharge my duties in those callings (which we have been told are the highest and holiest of callings) under the direction of the spirit. Sometimes I have gotten it wrong. Those times have pained my soul. The best remedy for those times has been to apologize to those effected, and double down on my efforts to do better – always using the spirit for inspiration. I think that would be a pattern worth following by our leaders as well.
Cam: “We have been taught from the beginning that ‘Prophets always speak the truth’,”
That is not what I’ve been taught.
Instead, Joseph Smith taught that ‘a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such’. [Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:265. Volume 5 link; See also Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 278] and Brigham Young explained further: ” Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken? Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you….” [“A Series of Instructions and Remarks by President Brigham Young at a Special Council, Tabernacle, March 21, 1858, Church Historical Department, in Richard S. Van Wagoner, ed., The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009), 3:1418.]
President Nelson’s statement that prophets “always teach the truth!” is a rhetorical exaggeration unless he meant they are not “prophets” when they teach mistaken ideas. I suspect the former. I don’t see any hypocrisy — merely humanly common, loose overstatement, like “from the beginning”. Otherwise, I agree with Cam.
Wondering – Those quotes you give are nice but they certainly aren’t included in church curriculum or taught over the pulpit. Instead, the mantra, “follow the prophet,” is drilled into our minds from the time we are young children. Every lesson, talk, or testimony given in church on the subject of prophets glorifies them and teaches that they receive revelation directly from God and then teach it to us. There is no discussion of how inspiration is usually fuzzy, that the prophet’s own thinking and biases influence what he teaches/proclaims, and that there is ample evidence of mistakes and even harmful ideas that have come from prophets throughout history.
Bryce, I think that’s largely true — that is, as to the vast majority of lessons in church and probably more in some places than others..
But I have been out of Primary so long and learned the concepts you express in your last sentence so many decades ago, beginning as a teenager, that I seem to have forgotten the drill.
On the other hand, there have been lessons on revelation that can be applied to prophets as well as ourselves if only people would bother to think of such application, and President Uchtdorf did teach about leaders’ mistakes over the general conference pulpit. And if “prophets” includes all those regularly sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators,” I’ve experienced Church history lessons in seminary and in gospel doctrine class and in PH meetings that did point out such prophets’ mistakes. I do wish there were more discussion of those in church (at least among adults and with teenagers) and more statements like Uchtdorf’s and more often. But there is (a) such a fear of upsetting the children and those who are relatively new to the church, and (b) such a culture of (at least public) adulation , that I don’t think it’s likely to happen. Instead, it will likely be left to each of us to grow up. That doesn’t require accusations of hypocrisy.
Not really much of a thought experiment if everyone just picks ideas and teachings they disagree with and say these will be rejected in 100 years and explained away as products of their time. A true thought experiment would be to analyze ideas and teachings you consider to be correct or at least acceptable and are also considered correct or acceptable by the general population or at least a sizable portion of the population that in 100 years will no longer be considered acceptable.