I've found more genuine spiritual revelation, knowledge and insight in a small book than I have in decades of General Conference.
They make broad their titles of prophet, seers and revelators and enlarge the borders of their authority.
"They have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof; from such turn away."
Mormons and Gays
Originally posted here: http://anonymousbishop.com/
The church now teaches it's okay to be gay as long as you are straight. Que?
The church now teaches it’s okay to be gay as long as you are straight. Que? Click on the link above to visit the site.
Since I mentioned this issue in my last post, I thought I would further address here. I am including a letter written by a bishop in the church to his stake president. I think the content is good. My belief is that the best way to “sustain the brethren” is to tell them precisely how we feel about important issues and hopefully to persuade them to the truth. I include this private letter with permission from this bishop. It was written in 2012, before the church cast its vote in favor of including gay scouts in BSA. I personally believe that the church is making a huge mistake by trying to tweak its “doctrines” to help change the church’s image. Enjoy.
--
Dear President XXXXXX:
I wish to respectfully share my concerns over the Church’s recent “Mormons and gays” website and the message, in my opinion, it will send to some.
On the website under the heading “Where the Church stands” it states:
The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
I agree with much of this statement and believe wholeheartedly that the Church and all its members should reach out to anyone who is struggling with sin.
As a bishop in the Church I frequently counsel ward members struggling with sexual sin. Like many other bishops I have discovered how important our thoughts are in this process. What we spend our time thinking about often determines what we do, who we are, and what we become. (Proverbs 23:7). What we think about ourselves and more importantly what we think about Christ will determine whether or not we overcome our sins.
The concept now advanced on the website that “the attraction itself is not a sin” appears to challenge the importance of containing our thoughts, appetites, and passions within the bounds the Lord has prescribed. After all many people are attracted to the opposite sex because they have entertained those thoughts. We teach our young men, for example, that their attraction to women is natural, that God made us this way to fulfill his divine procreative plan. I believe that this attraction in and of itself is not a sin, IF one’s thoughts, appetites, and passions (one might also say attractions) are pure and not allowed to dwell upon that which is carnal. This rationale becomes less logical when we take the same example of this natural attraction and apply it to a married person. Would we tell a married man, for example, that his attraction for another man’s wife is not a sin? When we expand this logic to same-sex attraction I think the argument loses its integrity entirely. The obligation exists as one of the most foundational parts of our faith that our “desires, appetites and passions” are to be confined to what “the Lord prescribes.” This is not confined to actions or deeds, but includes “desires” as well. Yet this website appears to now contradict that obligation and welcome desires, appetites and passions which are not prescribed by the Lord. Indeed, they are condemned by the Lord as an abomination.
Same sex attraction does not come from God. The Church teaches that homosexuality and other grievous sexual sins are next to murder in gravity. If one is attracted to this sin, then they are being enticed and tempted by the enemy of all righteousness, even the devil. Moroni explained that “…whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil is of the devil ” (Moroni 7:17). The very definition of the word attraction is intertwined in meaning with words such as persuade and entice.
To suggest that the attraction itself is not a sin, I believe, is far too broad a statement and could cause some struggling with same sex attraction to not be alarmed by what they think and feel. Or, alternatively, to dismiss it as normal and God-given. Would it not be better to say that “the attraction itself is not always a sin (especially when someone has been exposed to homosexuality before the age of accountability), but that the attraction itself is not from God and like any propensity or genetic disposition, we beseech Christ as our Healer and thank the Lord that men are not leopards and can thus change their spots.”
I also think it is overly broad and misleading to suggest that “individuals do not choose to have such attractions.” This may be true in some cases, but even many social and medical scientists would disagree with this broad statement. Some individuals may not have chosen these attractions, but many have. Others have these attractions as a result of being abused as a child or youth. As a bishop I have seen how pornography and “thought sins” as President Kimball called them, lead people down forbidden paths of immorality.
This statement also seems to indicate that “God makes people this way,” a common theme in society and amongst those telling their story on the Church’s new website. In fact those who are “Mormon and gay” by their own admission, and who are celibate, seem to celebrate having accepted themselves as they are. Is this the message of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, who has overcome the world? To accept who you are and embrace it? Or is the message of the Gospel to never stop petitioning the Lord to help you overcome your thoughts and your tendencies and your attractions and your vices and anything and everything that keeps you from Him?
I am very concerned that these videos will be shown in church meetinghouses to both the young and old and will put unnecessary ideas into the heads of younger members already struggling with their identity. In three of the videos that I watched, all three candidates being interviewed admitted to “experimenting” with same sex attraction, in one case to the point of “infatuation.” In other words, all three of these individuals had gay sexual relations. And by the grace of God each of these three people have, for the time being, seemingly overcome their urges and are now either married (Ty) or celibate (Suzanne and Ted). How many who “experiment” with homosexuality are able to live to tell their story in a video sponsored by the Church? I don’t know the answer, but I feel very uncomfortable with my own children and the youth of our ward being exposed to these types of “success stories” that may give the wrong impression that it’s not a sin to entertain such attractions and that anything they might do or try will turn out okay for them in the end. Furthermore, the overwhelming impression left by Ted and Suzanne is that their lot in life is to never marry, that God made them this way, and rather than fight it, they have embraced it. Is that the message we want to leave with members? That our brokenness cannot be repaired by Christ?
In a recent training for bishops and stake presidents, Elder David A. Bednar counseled us to preach that men must learn to “act for themselves and not to be acted upon.” (2 Nephi 2:26). Teaching people that same sex attraction is not a sin and that it is not by choice that people are same sex attracted, seems to suggest that it’s okay to be acted upon. I know that the Church does not intend this, but I fear it will be the natural conclusion drawn by many. Wouldn’t it be better to teach people that if they are not acting on same sex attractions, that they are not gay? They may have same sex attraction, but they have chosen to act for themselves and not be acted upon by not limiting or defining themselves to a title or as a victim of a condition of nature.
I am also concerned over the way the Church now seems to be treating this particular abomination differently than other sins which are equally abominable before God. The Church’s new policy, for example, is that BYU students are allowed to “be gay” as long as they do not act out on it. Will this same standard be applied to aspiring young missionaries? Will the Church allow young men to serve who are gay, but who are currently chaste? Am I to recommend a young man for service who says he is attracted to other young men sexually? As a parent I would be very concerned about my own son or daughter’s safety if I knew his/her companion was sexually attracted to him/her. Are we to assume that these young men and young women will not falter or give in to their sexual urges while companions day and night with someone they are sexually attracted to? If a gay person’s urges are the same or stronger than a heterosexual’s urges, then we may as well allow young men and young women to be companions with the opposite sex, if in fact the church allows a gay person to serve a mission with a companion of the same sex.
I hope that the answer is that we will not allow anyone who believes they are gay to serve a mission. I am not suggesting that someone cannot successfully struggle with same sex attraction and resist sins of commission. I am suggesting that everyone should go through the normal repentance process and prove they can be trusted in the Lord’s service.
In my opinion, a person cannot be both gay and completely chaste. Chaste being defined as holy, or whole. Being gay is a sexual orientation which is abominable to the Lord. In other words, gay people are oriented to having or wanting to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex. The Church should teach that anyone who feels they are gay should and can work to overcome it. And that if such a person succeeds in not acting out on it and allows the Lord to change their hearts, they will not be left disappointed and will certainly not still be gay.
Will the BYU standard apply to those wanting to serve in Boy Scouts or with the youth? BSA’s own policy is to “not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals” without making exception for whether those individuals abstain from sexual activity. Our Church policy seems to now conflict with BSA’s policy as we are allowing openly gay members to serve, I assume, in any and all positions in the Church, if they are “worthy.” This concerns me greatly.
The Boy Scouts also state that:
Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting. The vast majority of parents we serve value this right and do not sign their children up for Scouting for it to introduce or discuss, in any way, these topics.
The BSA is a voluntary, private organization that sets policies that are best for the organization. The BSA welcomes all who share its beliefs but does not criticize or condemn those who wish to follow a different path.
As a parent I would feel much more comfortable abiding by this policy within the Church. I agree that a setting must exist for those struggling with same sex attraction and other vices. I am told that less than 5% (some say 1%) struggle with SSA amongst Latter-day Saints. But I do not believe addressing this topic universally with the 95-99% should be incorporated into our mainstream daily Church organization. We appease the complaining small minority at the expense of alienating the greater majority who fear spread of this behavior. I do not want my kids exposed to such topics in any church setting in a way that may cause more questions than answers as I think these videos on Mormonsandgays.org do.
Will we offer the same deference to other types of sins or struggles? Is it correct to say that it is not a sin to want to kill someone as long as one does not act out on it? Or that it’s natural to be suicidal? Will we send someone on a mission who has suicidal tendencies or who admits to being tempted to murder someone? Do we say it is not a sin to be attracted sexually to animals or to little children? Would we ever in a million years place a calling to someone to serve in the nursery or in cub scouts who admits that they have a sexual attraction or orientation to little children, whether they have ever acted out on it or not?
In conclusion, I firmly agree with the general assertion that the Church should teach the world God loves all His children and members should try to emulate the same. I agree we should reach out to people who struggle with same sex or any inappropriate attraction by teaching them the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I agree members need to be generally more loving, forgiving and tolerant of all sinners. I agree bishops may need more counsel on how to sensitively deal with those who struggle with SSA.
But, I disagree the Church should accept that it’s okay to be gay or it should convey to any member these attractions are normal, God-given, and not sinful. I also do not believe the Church should have a website titled Mormonsandgays.org. I think the title alone is “racy” and sends the wrong message. Would we do the same with those who struggle with other pernicious sins? Mormons and pedophiles? Bestiality, adultery, or even kleptomaniacs? I do not think we should have videos with Church music in the background showing gays going on dates (as is depicted in Ty’s story). Nor should we allow someone, especially repentant, to refer to those experiences any more than we would want or allow a speaker in church or at a youth fireside or in a missionary discussion to mention their previous sexual sins.
I fully sustain the leadership of this wonderful Church. I pray for those who are tasked with grappling with these complex issues for the entire Church. I pray my confidential feedback is helpful. We love the Brethren and pray for the Lord to sustain them in these wicked and perilous times.
Respectfully,
Bishop XXXXXX
Mistaking false for true prophets
"But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet. Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him." (Helaman 13:27-28)
In a talk that should be titled "I testify of ourselves, never worry or fear, you can place your faith in us." (October 5, 2014) Dominican Elder Nelson proclaimed the following views:
"We thank you for your faith and devotion." This was said in relation to sustaining the authorities of the church.
"...We thank the O God for a Prophet. Do you and I really understand what that means? ...Imagine the privilege... His counsel will be untainted, unvarnished, unmotivated by any person aspiration, and utterly true."
I waited for a qualification, a clarification, that we cannot expect this, that he is a man and fallible. It never came. Truly he has thanked us for our "faith" and "devotion" to themselves.
"...we sustain [the prophet] in deed and in truth." This is a description in the scriptures of how we worship God.
"Prophets in every sense of the word" I still await any prophecy, seeing or revelation.
"no prophet has ever been elected" (5:30) Gerontocracy is how God manifests his chosen servant in our day. And yes, Brigham Young was elected.
"Perhaps it may make some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question—Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, no! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the President of the Church. Suffice it to say, that Joseph was the President of the Church, as long as he lived: the people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station, by the voice of the people. Can you find any revelation appointing him the President of the Church? The keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity; but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people; though he held the keys of the Priesthood, independent of their voice." (Brigham Young, JD 1:133)
"Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us."
"we know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached" In other words when we agree, that's how we know it's the Lord's will. (9:00)
"'We serve to the best of our ability, I assure you the church is in good hands. The system setup...assures us that it will always be in good hands, and come what may, there is no need to worry or fear.' (P. Hinckley)" (13:37)
"O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. Doubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him." (Mormon 9:27)
"And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell." (2 Nephi 28:21)
"President Monson we thank you for those truths. And we thank you for your lifetime of exemplary and dedicated service. May I presume to speak for the members of the church throughout the world in our united an sincere expression of gratitude for you. We honor you, we love you, we sustain you; not only with uplifted hands, but with all our hearts and consecrated efforts, humbly and fervently." (14:30)
Unbelievable. Its no wonder our bishop had such devotional and omniscient things to say about the prophet: "He knows my needs, he knows your needs. He knows each of us. I hope I can follow the prophet."
And this from Seventy William Walker: "As we follow President Monson and try to be more like him, we will inevitably succeed in being more faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ." (CES Devotional, Ensign, April 2014.)
The talk warrants church discipline for an act of apostasy and openly teaching others his pernicious views. It will never come, because apostasy is not defined by the church as apostasizing from Christ and his gospel, but from the established church leaders.
"And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck him out. It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God, with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." (Mark 9:46-47, Inspired Version)
Seventy Lynn Robbins (10/4/2014)
He opened his talk telling this story where Boyd K. Packer asked him "Which way do you face?" Elder Packer explained; "A seventy does not represent the people to the prophet, but the prophet to the people. Never forget which way you face."
"Between 3 Nephi chapter 11 and 28 the Savior used the title Father at least 163 times. Making it very clear to the Nephites that he was there representing his Father. And from John chapters 14 thru 17 the Savior refers the the father at least 50 times. In every way possible he was His Father's perfect disciple...He flawlessly knew which way he faced."
Elder Robbins turns this on its head, he turns it into name dropping. He turns the humility of Christ into pride. The Savior testified of the Father, because in humility, he testified of someone greater than himself. He wanted all glory for the Father. He set his face like a flint not doing his own will, but suffered greatly the will of the Father in all things. He was not some representative telling the Nephites they better listen to him because "hey, I'm next in line to the Father!"
It's such a self serving line. We are all supposed to be facing the Savior and supporting each other in that, not mirroring a Gentile corporation. He that is greatest is the servant of all. The church is supposed to be run by common consent, not by "shit flows down stream."
From Anonymous Bishop:
I remember in a leadership training meeting where Elder Bednar told the story of how he was asked the following question: “How are you guys (referring to the brethren) so in tune with the Lord?” Elder Bednar’s response was interesting. “First of all,” he said “we are not ‘guys’. We are prophets, seers, and revelators. We are special witnesses. Don’t refer to us as guys.”
"Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up." (2 Nephi 28:12)
Seventy Lynn Robbins inadvertently prophesies against the church:
"Many of the churches among the Nephites...began to dumb down the doctrine. Look for parallels in this passage for our day."
"And it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness." (4 Nephi 1:27)
"Deja Vu in the latter days." (General Conference 10/4/2014)
"If any man in that position [referring to the Church President], should become unfaithful, God would remove him out of his place. I testify in the name of Israel's God, that he will not suffer the head of the Church, whom he has chosen to stand at the head, to transgress His laws and apostatize. The moment he should take a course that would in time lead to it, God would take him away." (Joseph F. Smith Gospel Doctrine, p. 44)
Nephi specifies that it's the leaders that cause the people to err:
"O my people, they who lead thee cause thee to err and destroy the way of thy paths." (2 Nephi 13:12, quoting Isaiah 3:12)
"...they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men." (2 Nephi 28:14)
"Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be t neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Doc of Salv 2:287-288; emphasis added)
--
"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
"Neither take ye thought beforehand what ye shall say; but treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meted unto every man." (D&C 84:85)
New, Improved Mormonism
Lots of excitement arises from the statement by the church denouncing past practices and teachings in its editorial on its website titled “Race and the Priesthood.” Lots of buzz on the Internet and in news outlets. The thesis of the editorial is that the church, which today is headquartered in a nation with a black president, has overcome racism, which was a sin, and now can denounce it (and past president's of the church) with passion, like others in modern society.
The LDS position is that the church leaders can never lead its members astray, except in the past - and then it can correct it - in the here and now. When corrected, the LDS church can then consign its past leaders to condemnation for their sins. Sort of ex post facto “we’re still not going to lead you astray” as long as you are living when we fix it... or something like that. It’s really hard to keep up with the “we’re not going to lead you astray” component of modern Mormonism with all the dramatic changes and strong denouncements of past errors and sins and mistakes by racist, sexist, polygamous church presidents. But, trust them, they’re somehow not going to lead you astray.
The minions in the faceless editorial composition unit (I envision them as little yellow chaps who are constantly engaged in slapstick shenanigans) need to move forward now to continue their fix of the LDS position. I’d like to point out for their revisionism some more editing now needed:
The new editorial explained: “According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s ‘curse’ on Cain was the mark of a dark skin.” This view was based on a verse in Genesis. But they can leave Genesis 4: 15 alone, because the “mark” put upon Cain is not defined there. It is only in LDS scripture the mark is clarified. It was blackness: “And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.” (Moses 7: 22.) This uniquely LDS scripture clarifies what Genesis does not make clear. For the Christians “in the United States from at least 1730's” this idea of blacks descending from Cain was merely a theory. But for Latter-day Saints it was a matter of actual canonized scripture. So the purging of the LDS sins is only partial. They need to condemn Enoch as yet another past, false leader who subscribed to a now discredited view.
The editorial continues, describing “Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.” This is derived from the account in Genesis 9 where Noah curses Canaan with these words: “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” (Moses 7: 22.) These Biblical words have been used to justify slavery. This raises two issues: first, slavery, and second, a cursed lineage. These are two altogether different topics.
As to the first, slavery was practiced throughout the Old and New Testaments. Further, if you look at the specific curse of Noah’s, it did not relate to Ham. Nor to all of Ham’s descendants. Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain. However, the curse of servitude Noah pronounced did not target Ham, nor Ham’s sons Cush, Mizraim, or Phut. (Gen. 10: 6.) The curse of servitude was only on his grandson Canaan, the youngest son of Ham. Examples of servitude in scripture are too numerous to list, but the Law of Moses adopted rules governing how to treat slaves because slavery was permitted. Even Christ presumed slavery, using slaves in His parables. Most telling of all, however, is the unique future LDS heaven which envisions servitude for the unworthy. (See, e.g., D&C 132: 16-17.) So there’s some work left to do for the editorialists in conforming LDS scripture to the newly enlightened position. We will need for them to condemn past leaders like Moses, Christ, Joseph Smith and the God of the future LDS heaven for their errant positions if they expect to make full recompense for LDS past errors.
On the second idea of a cursed lineage, there’s more work to be done with LDS scriptures as well. In Abraham we read of the “Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry.” (Abr. 1: 27.) This makes it plain enough there was a “cursed lineage”– an idea which survives in LDS scripture despite the editorial.
The editorial continues: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse,” Stopping just there, we need to have the following language taken from the Book of Mormon: “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” (2 Ne. 5: 21. There’s also mention in 2 Ne. 26: 33 and 3 Ne. 2: 15) This was designed by God to prevent intermarriage (“that they might not be enticing unto my people”). In the LDS scriptures the word “enticing” is footnoted to the Topical Guide subject “Marriage, Temporal.”
Then there is the editorial remark denouncing “that mixed-race marriages are a sin.” This brushes up against the verse in 2 Ne. 5: 21 as well as Abraham’s commandment concerning his chosen son, Isaac. For that son and the chosen lineage Abraham commanded: “I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.” (Gen. 24: 3.) Strong, even racist language from father Abraham. He refused intermarriage for his son. The editorialists announce that “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” The word “unequivocally” means without any hesitation or limit. So we now have the editorialists speaking for the “Church leaders today” denouncing Abraham. It was a racist demand imposed by Abraham, while swearing by the God of heaven and earth, that his son must not marry a Canaanite.
I’m impressed with the LDS leader’s bold, historic, revolutionary break with their past, their scriptures and their future heaven as well. This is courage and drama on a scale seldom seen in religion. We are witnessing revolutionaries in the very act of overthrowing their past beliefs.
There’s a lot of the LDS past now denounced, unequivocally, by the “Church leaders today.” They’ve judged and dismissed God, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Joseph Smith, along with past church presidents Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Councilor J. Reuben Clark, and even President Spencer W. Kimball who made the change in 1978 (because he denounced interracial marriage).
I was excommunicated after being accused of among other things "denigrating every church president since Joseph Smith." I don't think the accusation was true. In fact, I merely quoted them or their diaries. But even if you accept the accusation against me, I managed to stop short of denigrating Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Christ and Joseph Smith along with "every church president since Joseph Smith." The "Church leaders today" have raised their game to a whole new level. I know when I've been outdone. I'm an underachiever by comparison. These "Church leaders today" will even take on God in their denigration of past leaders!
The trouble I see the LDS church editorial writers now making for the church is conflating racism (which everyone should recognize as bad) with priesthood. They ought to have stopped short of this overreaching effort to fix their public reputation. One (racism) is decidedly bad. The other (priesthood) is not at all related to racism. Racism which results in afflictions visited by one group upon another merely based upon their racial status is invidious. That should be something all mankind can overcome at some point.
But priesthood is something quite different. It is so narrowly distributed that even the lesser priesthood was limited to one tribe (Levi) and even then could not be given to a man with a withered limb, or some other physical defect. Higher priesthood was yet more restrictive, almost never given to anyone, in any age. It is extraordinarily limited in numbers. God controls that Himself, directly.
For mankind to complain about God's control over His own power is beyond arrogant. The LDS church asserts it has some control over God's priesthood (a position that is increasingly dubious with each act of rebellion against God, and usurping power and control over the conscience of its members). On the assumption the LDS' claim is true, then they are merely stewards. They have no right to tinker with something God alone controls.
Fortunately, the highest form of priesthood requires a visit from God, who alone confers it. Therefore, no policy change, or enlightened new political position, will ever have an effect on who receives such an ordination. When (if) it reappears on the earth, it will have only one purpose: To bring about Zion and enable God's promises to be fulfilled. It won't be for empowering priestcraft and enabling multi-billion dollar purchases of land and buildings by an elite group who fare sumptuously while the poor are left begging
This is a great moment - and another example of the LDS church’s “continuing revelation,” because it surely is revealing.
http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/12/new-improved-mormonism.html