Apparently, because the policy was initiated by the Lord.
Selek,
This is called "revelation" if it was initiated by the Lord and not part of existing doctrine!!!!!!
There is absolutely no evidence of this anywhere in documented church records or the standard works.
And until you are called to speak for the Church, you have no rght to keep stating: "We" don't know. "You" may not know but I, and many other posters here "know" very well the ban was not initiated by Christ, our doctrines or revelation. So please, don't contnue to attempt to bind, speak, think or conclude for anyone other than yourself on Church issues where the Church has issued no formal explanation. It's a bit arrogant to say the very least.
And until you are called to speak for the Church, you have no rght to keep stating: "We" don't know. "You" may not know but I, and many other posters here "know" very well the ban was not initiated by Christ, our doctrines or revelation. So please, don't contnue to attempt to bind, speak, think or conclude for anyone other than yourself on Church issues where the Church has issued no formal explanation. It's a bit arrogant to say the very least.
Absolutely incredible.
While condemning Selek for claiming to "speak for the Church" by telling us that we just don't know, you claim you "know" that God had nothing to do with the ban. Who's the one really attempting to speak for the Church? It's you.
The truth is, we don't know. As you have been repeatedly told, and as anyone willing to do a little research will find, the historical record is simply silent on a great deal of background for the ban.
Yet you seem to think that because we don't have a published revelation, that authorizes you to speak for the Church and say it had nothing to do with Christ - as if every revelation and piece of inspiration must be published or it never really occurred. Here's a hint for you - your rationalization on this is absolutely false. It's a bit arrogant to make the kind of claims you do, and to rationalize that since you have determined that "the ban was not initiated by Christ", you can then demand that the Church issue some kind of apology.
It ain't going to happen based on your weak rationalizations. It doesn't matter how convenient it seems to you to throw the Church under the bus on this, but until you get past the basic flaw in your logic about "we don't have a published revelation, so it wasn't a revelation", you're not going to have much of substance to add to this issue.
BTW, the understanding that we "just don't know" is quite mainstream, and is well understood by most people in the Church who take some time to study the matter.
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"
Because of the inherent hostility in both the OP and the posts offered up in support of it.
This isn't DanGB's first time around the block on this issue. He's heard all this before, but his agenda is more important than facts or intellectual honesty.
Quote
Perhaps this is a dead horse for you, doesn't mean others timetables for understanding and finding personal resolution on this issue ought to be belittled because they are asking questions you have personally put to rest.
How many times must the Church be called "racist" by implication before it's put to rest?
How much endless (and useless) speculation is necessary?
How many times must we see the Church slandered without basis by those with an agenda before you realize enough is enough?
DanGB isn't here to learn. He's here to gring his axe.
Anyone who pretends otherwise isn't paying attention.
Quote
I also think, having spent the last hour reading over this thread that you have no answers nor contribution to make on this topic at all.
Thank you for your opinion. I personally consider exposing the biases and the falsehoods to be a worthwhile condition, but to each his own.
Quote
We don't know, move on is not a position of relevance on an apologetic site.
Except where it's true- and then it's the only acceptable position on an apologetics site.
Let's try an analogy:
Your wife has been accused (falsely) of adultery, and her reputation is being smeared all over town.
The folks doing this gossiping don't have a clue what they're talking about- but they're quite happy to speculate and to embellish the details out of their fervid and fertile imaginations.
How long, and how often, are you willing to deny the falsehoods?
You know that your wife is faithful and that the charges are false, and have put the issue to bed.
So does that mean that you have nothing further to contribute?
Does that mean that you stand idly by while the gossip and character assassination rage around you?
Do you sit silently while your wife is defamed and libelled on false charges by those who wish to see her brought to her knees?
Would you be silent while someone you loved was slandered and villified on charges you know to be false?
What DanGB and his ilk are doing to the Church and our leaders is no different.
They don't know what happened- but they're happy to manufacture the most hateful and vile speculation in order to keep flogging the issue. They don't KNOW what they're talking about but they're willing to slander and malign and gossip.
By assuming the worst about our leaders and our faith, and by repeating that speculation as though it were somehow factual, they are bearing false witness against the Lord's Church and against his annointed.
Their fascination with salacious gossip and vicious innuendo will not contribute one whit toward learning the truth- but it will do a lot to spread falsehoods in the meantime.
Quote
Our history as a church has moments of greatness, and then moments that, for us looking back, are not so great.
Agreed. But making up your own version of "what happened" and spreading it as somehow factual won't solve the problem.
You remember all that racist speculation about "blacks being not valiant" and all the rest? That was someone's made-up version of "what happened". That was someone's made-up version of why the Ban was in place.
Those rationalizations are an embarrassment and have been rightly renounced.
How then, are your rationalizations, or DanGB's any less an embarrassment? The ignorant (and bigoted) speculation won't contribute to real understanding of what really happened. It's all guesswork being made in a vacuum.
It is morally equivalent to the pre-78 guesswork by those trying to justify the Ban based on racist theory.
Ignorant and counter-factual speculation will serve only to enshrine falsehoods, to divide, and to propagandize.
It must be countered on that basis alone.
Quote
But at least you could have the decency of getting out of the way of individuals who may not have reached your glorious and enlightened position on the issue.
Just you should stand aside and allow the slandering of your wife on false charges?
Quote
If you really believe as you say then I would have thought I would have heard little from you during this discussion, rather you have dominated the entire thread.
If there was less falsehood and fewer bigoted agendas, I wouldn't be quite as busy, that's true.
As far as "dominating the thread", I'm here only to counter falsehood and propaganda. Please demonstrate where I've been wrong.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
'Every man is a hero of his own tale....every man must look on himself as wiser and more intelligent and more virtuous than the rest, so how could he see himself as the villain, or even as a minor character?
And you must have noticed that heroes are never beaten. They may be undone for a while, but they always do themselves up again, and marry the virtuous young gentlewoman.'- Patrick O'Brian
This is called "revelation" if it was initiated by the Lord and not part of existing doctrine!!!!!!
Have I denied that the Priesthood Ban came by revelation? No. I have simply repeated the Church's official statement- that "We don't know".
"We don't know" is the only factually accurate and morally (or logically) tenable position.
Everything else is pure (and useless) speculation.
I have not denied the possibility that the Ban came about by revelation, I've simply quoted one of our Prophets who stated bluntly that it was not doctrine.
Quote
There is absolutely no evidence of this anywhere in documented church records or the standard works.
This is an argument from silence. Lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack.
The only honest position- which I've stated several times now- is that we don't know where or how it was implemented.
Quote
And until you are called to speak for the Church, you have no rght to keep stating: "We" don't know.
Yet that is the official position of the Church.
Quote
"You" may not know but I, and many other posters here "know" very well the ban was not initiated by Christ, our doctrines or revelation.
The Church's official spokesmen do not agree with you.
But I do thank you for the admission (against interest) that your original OP was not asked in good faith.
Your comment above is a clear, explicit admission that you are here to grind an axe rather than to learn.
That, BikeyMikey, is why I post here.
Quote
So please, don't contnue to attempt to bind, speak, think or conclude for anyone other than yourself on Church issues where the Church has issued no formal explanation.
And yet the Church's spokesmen- President Hinckley, President McConkie and others have made the Church's position plain. It is you who insist on going past their statements in pursuit of your own agenda.
Quote
It's a bit arrogant to say the very least.
Perhaps- but it is not so arrogant as presuming to judge- and condemn- the Church based solely upon the product of your own speculation and invention.
Edited by selek, 06 July 2010 - 05:35 PM.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
'Every man is a hero of his own tale....every man must look on himself as wiser and more intelligent and more virtuous than the rest, so how could he see himself as the villain, or even as a minor character?
And you must have noticed that heroes are never beaten. They may be undone for a while, but they always do themselves up again, and marry the virtuous young gentlewoman.'- Patrick O'Brian
Yet you seem to think that because we don't have a published revelation, that authorizes you to speak for the Church and say it had nothing to do with Christ - as if every revelation and piece of inspiration must be published or it never really occurred. Here's a hint for you - your rationalization on this is absolutely false. It's a bit arrogant to make the kind of claims you do, and to rationalize that since you have determined that "the ban was not initiated by Christ", you can then demand that the Church issue some kind of apology.
whitlock,
You may want to read before you speak or get all emotional. I speak for myself here, no one else. I made that quite clear. Maybe you and I differ on the basis of our conclusions. I base mine on what "is" there. You may base yours on what you "want, wish or hope" is there but is not. I know through church documents, our standard works, prayer and personal revelation that the ban had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our Heavenly Father. I believe, like others here, the Church owes an apology for the racists positions of it's past leaders. I will forever stand by that conclusion. If you don't like that, either deal with it or get over it! But don't come here and insinuate that I am attempting to make conclusions for anyone but myself. It's assinine!
I, and many other posters here "know" very well the ban was not initiated by Christ
DanGB, on 06 July 2010 - 05:33 PM, said:
I speak for myself here, no one else. I made that quite clear.
So clear, in fact, that you cannot keep your story straight from one post to another.
Quote
Maybe you and I differ on the basis of our conclusions. I base mine on what "is" there. You may base yours on what you "want, wish or hope" is there but is not.
Really? So where then is the definitive statement that the Ban was not revelation?
That is your position. Where is the statement proving your position?
Quote
I know through church documents, our standard works, prayer and personal revelation that the ban had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our Heavenly Father.
Call For References. Your claims contradict the official and public statements of the Church and it's leaders.
Back up your claim.
Quote
I believe, like others here, the Church owes an apology for the racists positions of it's past leaders.
And yet you cannot back up that claim.
Please- CFR. Demonstrate that the Priesthood Ban was not of God.
Demonstrate (rather than merely posturing) that the Ban was not authorized.
Quote
I will forever stand by that conclusion. If you don't like that, either deal with it or get over it!
Quote
But don't come here and insinuate that I am attempting to make conclusions for anyone but myself. It's assinine!
No- as pointed out above, you claimed to KNOW (both for yourself and many other posters) that the Ban was NOT of God.
Please enlighten us.
Share your wisdow- wisdom that seems to have evaded the best and brightest in the Church- including the Quorum of the Twelve and numerous First Presidencies.
Your all your ranting and raving, for all your desperate attempt to change the subject, the only intellectually honest and factually tenable position is the one issed by the Church (and repeated by myself and others).
That position is "We just don't know."
You're the one arguing absolutes.
It's up to you to prove them.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
'Every man is a hero of his own tale....every man must look on himself as wiser and more intelligent and more virtuous than the rest, so how could he see himself as the villain, or even as a minor character?
And you must have noticed that heroes are never beaten. They may be undone for a while, but they always do themselves up again, and marry the virtuous young gentlewoman.'- Patrick O'Brian
Really? So where then is the definitive statement that the Ban was not revelation?
Selek,
As other posters seem to agree, I think you really are losing it here!
I simply cannot provide evidence for something that never happened. Just can't do it. Common sense usually tells us the obligation for evidence falls on those making a claim that something happened. The concept may not register with you but good luck anyway!!
Now where is that official spokesman statement??? Won't hold my breath!
You may want to read before you speak or get all emotional.
Unlike you, of course. Your post was absolutely devoid of emotion.
Not.
Quote
I speak for myself here, no one else. I made that quite clear.
First falsehood. Shall I quote you? "You may not know but I, and many other posters here "know" very well the ban was not initiated by Christ, our doctrines or revelation." So much for "speaking for yourself" - and quite clear that you consider yourself more "informed" than Church leaders.
Quote
Maybe you and I differ on the basis of our conclusions. I base mine on what "is" there.
Odd. I must have missed all the historical evidence you posted in support of your position. Odd also that your whole assumption is based on what you "don't" have - such as a published revelation, which was the main point of your post.
Quote
You may base yours on what you "want, wish or hope" is there but is not.
How ironic, given your dearth of evidence. Actually, hard evidence that is available is that a succession of prophets of the Lord did not lift the ban despite their personal desires to see it lifted. From my standpoint as a faithful member of the Church, who believes that we have prophets who receive ongoing guidance from the Lord, and given the visibility of the ban, this is strong evidence that the Lord allowed it to stay in place - despite how it came about - until 1978. From your rather flawed assumption that there was never any revelation on the subject, your position must be that all of those presidents of the Church were perpetuating something they knew to be false.
But of course, you "know" - as I quoted you above - better, don't you. Forgive me, but I'll stay with a more reliable source.
Quote
I know through church documents, our standard works, prayer and personal revelation that the ban had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our Heavenly Fathe
r.
Things that for some reason you never get around to posting, do you. IIRC, you also seem to believe that the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood was not actually a revelation either, but simply a convenient policy change. Of course, feel free to correct me if I've wrongly remembered what you have posted previously on this subject. In the meantime, what I hear from you leads me to take your statement above with more than the proverbial grain of salt.
Quote
I believe, like others here, the Church owes an apology for the racists positions of it's past leaders.
Whoops - no longer speaking for yourself, I see. This statement is very enlightening, as it gives us more insight into your true agenda. As selek has noted, you don't seek to understand, but to condemn for your own ends. I'll reiterate again - your demands for an apology are simply a case of misplaced PC based on flawed assumptions and rationalizations.
Quote
I will forever stand by that conclusion.
A pity.
Quote
If you don't like that, either deal with it or get over it! But don't come here and insinuate that I am attempting to make conclusions for anyone but myself. It's assinine!
I not only don't like it, but have demonstrated that your position is demonstrably false.
I've also demonstrated that you're being disingenuous by claiming you're speaking for yourself only - something that's highly ironic given your condemnation of selek for "speaking for the Church".
And with what I believe is an intentional misspelling of an epithet, I will be pressing the report button.
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"
I simply cannot provide evidence for something that never happened.
My goodness! First you claim this: " I know through church documents, our standard works, prayer and personal revelation that the ban had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our Heavenly Father."
And then you tell us you can't provide any evidence!
The fun never stops!
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"
Aug 17, 1951 - First Presidency statement that church’s restriction on Negroid peoples receiving priesthood “is not a matter of the declaration of policy but of direct commandment from the Lord.”
Further, even their blood was bad.....
Mar 3, 1953 - First Presidency secretary answers Mormon’s inquiry about receiving blood transfusions from African Americans: “The LDS Hospital here in Salt Lake City has a blood bank which does not contain any colored blood.” This represents five year effort to keep LDS Hospital’s blood bank separate from American Red Cross system in order “to protect the purity of the blood streams of the people of this Church”(Counselor J. Reuben Clark’s phrase.)
Aug 17, 1951 - First Presidency statement that church’s restriction on Negroid peoples receiving priesthood “is not a matter of the declaration of policy but of direct commandment from the Lord.”
Further, even their blood was bad.....
Mar 3, 1953 - First Presidency secretary answers Mormon’s inquiry about receiving blood transfusions from African Americans: “The LDS Hospital here in Salt Lake City has a blood bank which does not contain any colored blood.” This represents five year effort to keep LDS Hospital’s blood bank separate from American Red Cross system in order “to protect the purity of the blood streams of the people of this Church”(Counselor J. Reuben Clark’s phrase.)
Like to provide links or specific references to this?
Ya know, I hate to do this, but we do have people who come through from time to time who pull things from anti-Mormon sites that are less than "reliable". Certainly that's not the case here, but it would be best just to verify it...
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"
Gordon B. Hinckley in an interview:
Q: So in retrospect, was the Church wrong in that [not ordaining blacks]?
A [Pres. Hinckley]: No, I don't think it was wrong. It, things, various things happened in different periods. There's a reason for them.
Q: What was the reason for that?
A: I don't know what the reason was. But I know that we've rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.[1]
Gordon B. Hinckley, the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when asked the reason behind the Priesthood Ban replied, "I don't know."
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said:
Quote
I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.[3]
And in closing, let me quote another presumptuous bumpkin who presumed to speak for the Church, a fella named Dallin Oaks:
Quote
in speaking about all the speculation into the reasons behind the Ban, he said:the
...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.
...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.[2]
Regarding the speculation about the reasons behind the Ban, Jeffery Holland also said:
Quote
One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it.
All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...
It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years.
... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed.
These men are all authorized spokesmen for the Church.
They are all anointed servants of the Lord called in stewardship fo teh Church and it's people.
Their position vis-a-vis teh origins of the Ban are "We don't know."
Their positions via a vis the speculation regarding those reasons is "Don't make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, of trying to put reasons to revelation."
That should be good enough for any FAITHFUL Mormon, don't you think?
2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
'Every man is a hero of his own tale....every man must look on himself as wiser and more intelligent and more virtuous than the rest, so how could he see himself as the villain, or even as a minor character?
And you must have noticed that heroes are never beaten. They may be undone for a while, but they always do themselves up again, and marry the virtuous young gentlewoman.'- Patrick O'Brian
As other posters seem to agree, I think you really are losing it here!
Thank you for the blatant personal attack.
I will consider that an admission that you have nothing else.
Quote
I simply cannot provide evidence for something that never happened. Just can't do it. Common sense usually tells us the obligation for evidence falls on those making a claim that something happened.
Correct- yet you're the one insisting that the Ban was NOT of God.
You are the one staking out a definitive claim, and it is therefore incumbent upon you to support it.
Quote
Now where is that official spokesman statement??? Won't hold my breath!
I provided three quotes in my post above.
They more than answer your CFR.
Now answer mine.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
'Every man is a hero of his own tale....every man must look on himself as wiser and more intelligent and more virtuous than the rest, so how could he see himself as the villain, or even as a minor character?
And you must have noticed that heroes are never beaten. They may be undone for a while, but they always do themselves up again, and marry the virtuous young gentlewoman.'- Patrick O'Brian
Aug 17, 1951 - First Presidency statement that church’s restriction on Negroid peoples receiving priesthood “is not a matter of the declaration of policy but of direct commandment from the Lord.”
jwhitlock, on 06 July 2010 - 06:06 PM, said:
Like to provide links or specific references to this?
Ya know, I hate to do this, but we do have people who come through from time to time who pull things from anti-Mormon sites that are less than "reliable". Certainly that's not the case here, but it would be best just to verify it...
Actually, Jwhit, this first quote is genuine, and has been cited several times in the last three of these dead-horse threads.
The rest of the prose, however....
Oh and Finch?
The First Presidency statement said the police was "REVELATION", not "DOCTRINE".
There is a difference.
This statement boldly claims that the Ban came about by "direct commandment".
It nowhere claims that the policy itself was doctrine.
Edited by selek, 06 July 2010 - 06:15 PM.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
'Every man is a hero of his own tale....every man must look on himself as wiser and more intelligent and more virtuous than the rest, so how could he see himself as the villain, or even as a minor character?
And you must have noticed that heroes are never beaten. They may be undone for a while, but they always do themselves up again, and marry the virtuous young gentlewoman.'- Patrick O'Brian
The ban was by definition racist, as it applied to all those of African decent (ie the African race).
There is no such thing as an "African Race", or a "Mexican race" or a "European race". Black Africans have a certain DNA, a certain linage, and a certain body of progenitors. As the PofGP makes perfectly clear, that is the basis of the restriction on holding the Priesthood, not "race", a concept that appears nowhere in the standard works of the Church.
I think you've been reading far too much Leonard Jeffries.
Quote
Skin color is not "more broadly, race." Dark skin is a typical, but not an essential or exclusive characteristic of the African race. That you allowed dark skinned members of other races to enter the temple, does not mean the ban was not racist.
If you're going to attempt a logically persuasive argument here, then you're going to have to take the fact that only dark skinned Africans were so disallowed into consideration. Traditional white racism was never, under any circumstances, so selective.
Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas.
When my African American friends down here in Texas ask me about the racial past of our Church, you'll forgive me if I don't dismiss their questions with your reply of "just get over it"!
This is the callous nature of some members I've had to avoid and overcome for years.
I'll just correct Dan here in using the term "African American" and translate it as "black friends", just so we are clear that none of his friends are first generation African immigrants. If they are, then I stand corrected.
Secondly, my comment of "getting over it" was aimed at the whole obsession with race, identity politics and racial grievance that has driven and kept the twitching corpse of the "civil rights" movement alive, zombie-like, long after its legitimate intellectual and moral claims had been accepted and realized.
We should also get over the priesthood ban, just as some need to get over plural marriage, prop 8, abortion, earrings, tattoos, etc., and start living valiantly. I do not claim this to be easy, only that it is necessary to achieve all the promises of the gospel in this life and that to come.
Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas.
DanGB- I want to introduce you to this new and miraculous feature called a "Search" Box.
It is a means by which wandering souls such as yourself can look up any of the SEVEN THOUSAND THREADS ON THIS PARTICULAR DEAD HORSE OF A TOPIC without opening yet another meaningless thread for the purpose of cynical race-baiting, playing irrelevant "gotchas", or reinventing the damned wheel.
We've beaten this topic to death.
The priesthood ban was NOT doctrine.
We don't KNOW precisely where or how it originated- there's a lot of uninformed speculation, but precious few facts.
We KNOW that certain people who might've fallen under the Ban were given the Priesthood before it was implemented.
We KNOW that it was lifted by Revelation and commandment in 1978.
We KNOW that many of the rationalizations given for the ban were wrong, if not out-right racist and offensive.
We KNOW Mormons as a people were no more racist- and frequently LESS racist- than their contemporaries- and that Mormon policies toward and treatment towards African-Americans were often considered radically progressive.
There: you are now in possession of all of the relevant facts concerning the Priesthood Ban.
Thank you for your interest, and please do your OWN homework from now on.
Hmm. Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Selek, there are a few people that have logged on here today wanting to 'surf' the new topics and just see what is "goin'on". You say to "Do your...(how was that)...OWN homework". "Do a search. I'm bettin' he has done that. All you have to do is google "Blacks and the Priesthood" and Pandora's box opens up. What's the fun in that? It seems to me he is 'hankering' for a discussion on the matter. This topic is always interesting and just because you average somewhere around 6 posts every single day (Wow. You really like this place)...every day of the year, and are bored because you have read probably everything that might be said about the topic in a forum discussion, doesn't mean that a person (such as myself) wouldn't find this subject interesting. I haven't been on here for over 2 years and this was the first thread I clicked on. A little 'dialogue' is what I was looking for even though I have read dozens of talks, websites, etc. about this.
Actually, Jwhit, this first quote is genuine, and has been cited several times in the last three of these dead-horse threads.
The rest of the prose, however....
Thanks. I need to remember the methodology of using a valid lead-in phrase to move to the real purpose for the attack.
I'll post this question / answer from Darius Gray (who has some excellent insight into the whole issue) that I find pertinent:
Quote
Q: Is there still racism in the church?
There is racism in the world. There is racism in the United States. Sadly, I think there is a resurgence in racism. I think I am seeing more now than I've seen in forty years. Is there racism in the church? Yes, because we are a cross-section of the United States, of the people here. Now, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints racist? No, never has been. But some of those people within the church have those tendencies. You have to separate the two. (My bolding)
The more I think about Dan's slander about our Church leaders being racist - to justify his own weak assumptions - the more it becomes evident that understanding that "we just don't know" is absolutely correct. No apology needed, just the usual ongoing efforts to live up to the covenants that we have made within the framework of the restored gospel.
I'm still waiting for Dan to confirm whether he things that the 1978 declaration was revelation or not. In fact, I'd also be interested in finding out if Dan thinks that the priesthood we hold is really from God or not. Questions, questions.
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"
It seems to me he is 'hankering' for a discussion on the matter.
Not really. This isn't the first time Dan has posted this kind of stuff, and not the first time he hasn't been able to back up any of his claims with hard evidence. He just wants a stage for one of his pet agendas, which is to make a "racist" Church (his characterization) apologize for something that he "knows" was not based on revelation.
While I can understand selek being impatient with him, I find it far more enlightening to point out Dan's inconsistencies. He basically hangs himself every time he re-opens up this particular "apology" issue that he has.
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"
0
This topic is locked
