131 replies to this topic

[Droopy]

Lloyd Dobler, on 06 July 2010 - 03:50 PM, said:

Exactly.  There is no getting over it because if the church wants to grow or connected with non members with half a brain and the internet, then it should actually be made quite clear by the church whether it was policy or revelation.  The church should make it so clear, which they could do with a living prophet, so as to remove any doubt to the question.  We should not even have to address this question but..........

Maybe the Brethren, at present, don't know and don't have an answer.  How then, if this is the case, can they "remove any doubt" with a public statement?

As I've stated many times, we live by faith here, to a great extent, line upon line, here a little, and there a little.

We are in an arena here, an arena of conflict, struggle and thinking on our feet without all the answers being placed before us at every hand.

I mean, what fun would that be?  Doubt as to certain things is a part of the mortal arena.  The question is, do we have a testimony?  Are we living on borrowed light, or through our own?

But why wait for the Church to make an official statement?  Any of us can knnow, if the Lord so wills it, through prayer and the power of the Holy Ghost, the truth of all things, including the priesthood ban.

Its on our knees where much of this is untangled and the rough edges smoothed.

Edited by Droopy, 06 July 2010 - 06:38 PM.

[selek]

ProvoGirl, on 06 July 2010 - 06:23 PM, said:

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.

Hi Provo Girl.

You apparently missed DanGB's admission (against interest) that this thread wasn't a serious attempt at conversation or learning.

It was- from the git-go- nothing more than an excuse to trot out his pet issue and flog the Church as racist and bigoted.

DanGB was never interested in learning anything, he just wanted to preen and posture a bit.

Quote

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 understand and agree.  It's not genuine discussion to which I object.

It's another round of "Bash them durn racust Marminz" which gets my goat.

But as illustrated, DanGB was interested in the former, not the latter.

Quote

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.

I have absolutely no objection to dialogue.

I simply loathe race-baiters, and have no use for baseless conjecture or worse, ignorant speculation.

Quote

I do find it funny that we are already on page 4.

Yeah, well, six posts per day do tend to add up.   

[DanGB]

jwhitlock, on 06 July 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

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!

One word will do:

"Comprehension"!

[selek]

DanGB, on 06 July 2010 - 06:32 PM, said:

One word will do:

"Comprehension"!

One word will indeed do.

Unfortunately, that word is "Dodge".

Because that's what you're doing here.

You claim you know, but refuse to provide any evidence for HOW you know.

You're ducking and weaving, trying to avoid the admission, but it's there all the same.

[Droopy]

ProvoGirl, on 06 July 2010 - 06:23 PM, said:

This topic is always interesting and just because you average somewhere around 6 posts every single day

I've been online and involved in message boards and email lists since 1997, and believe me, its long past the "interesting" stage.

As with so much of anti-Mormon criticism, all has been plausibly and sincerely answered over and over and over again ad infinitum, to the degree that the reasons for the ban can be answered with any veracity, but the issue doesn't die because the larger critical agenda never dies.

Primarily, at this juncture the priesthood ban is, for the most part, a banquet for trolls.

Edited by Droopy, 06 July 2010 - 06:37 PM.

[jwhitlock]

Droopy, on 06 July 2010 - 06:29 PM, said:

Maybe the Brethren, at present, don't know and don't have an answer.  How then, if this is the case, can they "remove any doubt" with a public statement?

No!  It can't be!  Prophets always have an answer for everything, don't they??

If they don't, they - gasp - must not be real prophets!!

Or at least that seems to be the logic of some people...

[jwhitlock]

DanGB, on 06 July 2010 - 06:32 PM, said:

One word will do:

"Comprehension"!

Evidently, it is difficult for a yutz like me to "comprehend" the clear, self-evident truths that you so prophetically proclaim.

Nevertheless, it's been fun pointing out how inconsistent you are, while you respond only that we can't "comprehend" you.

Actually, you're pretty much correct.  I don't comprehend you.  You're on a totally different plane than I am; I just don't get people who hang themselves by their own statements without understanding what's going on.

In the meantime, for our continued edification and comprehension, you can enlighten us further on your position by answering the following two questions that I have previously posed:

- Am I correct in remembering that you don't accept the 1978 declaration on priesthood as revelation?
- Do you believe that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold the keys to the true priesthood of God, restored in the last days?

And, I'll add a third one:

- Do you believe that all the presidents of the Church since Joseph Smith have been true prophets of God, guided by Him in leading His Church in the last days?

I'm really, really interested in your answers - and I'll try hard to comprehend them.

[Skylla]

This thread is on the verge of being closed.  Tone it down.

Skylla

[ACW]

DanGB, on 06 July 2010 - 02:58 PM, said:

droopy,

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.

Direct your African American friends to the Genesis Group website.  It should answer some of you questions better than this board.  And Marvin Perkins is wonderful about answering emails.

[DanGB]

Quote

But why wait for the Church to make an official statement? Any of us can knnow, if the Lord so wills it, through prayer and the power of the Holy Ghost, the truth of all things, including the priesthood ban.

This is  precisely how I came to know the truth w respect to my conclusions on this matter.  This and the documented church standards and history.

[kamenraider]

Quote

When I reflect upon the Prophet's statements and remember what happened to three of our nation's presidents who were very active in the Negro cause, I am sobered by their demise. They went contrary to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith -- unwittingly, no doubt, but nevertheless, the prophecy of Joseph Smith, "... those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel," has and will continue to be fulfilled.

In this respect, let me give you a personal experience. A friend of mine in Arizona -- not a Church member -- a great champion of the colored race -- came to me after my call into the Twelve, and acknowledged President McKay to be a Prophet of God. He wanted me to ask President McKay to inquire of the Lord to see if the Lord would not lift the curse from the colored race and give them the privileges of the Priesthood. I explained to him that the Lord had placed the curse upon the Negro, which denied him the Priesthood; therefore it was the Lord's responsibility -- not man's -- to change His decision. This friend of mine met a very tragic end by drowning. He was a most enthusiastic advocate of the colored cause and went about promoting for them all the privileges, social opportunities, and participation enjoyed by the Whites.
--Elder Delbert L. Stapley, of the Quorum of the Twelve, letter to Governor George W. Romney, January 23, 1964 see HERE.

Edited by kamenraider, 07 July 2010 - 07:37 AM.

[DanGB]

Quote

In the meantime, for our continued edification and comprehension, you can enlighten us further on your position by answering the following two questions that I have previously posed:

- Am I correct in remembering that you don't accept the 1978 declaration on priesthood as revelation?
- Do you believe that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold the keys to the true priesthood of God, restored in the last days?

And, I'll add a third one:

- Do you believe that all the presidents of the Church since Joseph Smith have been true prophets of God, guided by Him in leading His Church in the last days?

I don't do public TR interviews, sorry.

[AtticusFinch]

selek, on 06 July 2010 - 06:11 PM, said:

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".

Not sure what the police have to do about it.  And it if it a DIRECT COMMANDMENT from God, isn't that doctrine? If God gives a direct commandment about He wants His Church run, isn't that Doctrine?

[selek]

Your sneering over a minor typo not withstanding, the answer is, "Of course not."

Unless and until the Lord specifies his guidance to be recorded as doctrine, it is not.

It is not to be ignored, but it's not doctrine unless specified as such.

The prophets and GA's have specified repeatedly the Ban was NOT doctrine.

You are attempting to use innuendo and smarmy suggestion to imply something which is flatly contradicted by clear statements from those in a position to know.

You are not arguing in good faith.

[AtticusFinch]

selek, on 07 July 2010 - 11:02 AM, said:

Your sneering over a minor typo not withstanding, the answer is, "Of course not."

I was not sure it was a typo since the two words are totally different....a typo is when you hit a wrong key, not when you use a totally different word.

Unless and until the Lord specifies his guidance to be recorded as doctrine, it is not.

lol...then knock out the entire D&C because I have never seen where the section said, "this is doctrine".  Nice try.  But if it was commanded from God on how to operate His Church (which is wasn't, by the way, God never commanded that kind of racism) then it is doctrine, no matter how badly you need to deny it

You are attempting to use innuendo and smarmy suggestion to imply something which is flatly contradicted by clear statements from those in a position to know.

All I did was post a quote.  I am not sure how quotes from YOUR leaders can be considered smarmy, but I guess I can agree

You are not arguing in good faith.

I am not arguing at all.  Your leaders said God commanded His Church to be run a certain way.....that is doctrine.

doc·trine? ?/?d?ktr?n/  Show Spelled[dok-trin]  Show IPA
–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government:  
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject

ok...let's look at definition 1: was the ban a particular principle?  YES.  Was it a policy taught?  YES (it was even commanded) Was it advocated?  YES.

How about #2.....was it something taught?  YES.  Was it part of collective teachings?  Absolutely.  

How about 3.....was it a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject?  YES!!!!!!!!

If it walks like a doctrine and quacks like a doctrine, it is a doctrine.

[wenglund]

Mr. Finch,

Perhaps you weren't aware, but dictionaries are intended to convey common usages of words. They aren't intended to dictate specific and subjective applications of terms. In other wotds, the dictionary doesn't empower you to tell us what is our doctine or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 07 July 2010 - 01:05 PM.

[thesometimesaint]

AtticusFinch:

The wise discuss ideas, the unwashed masses discuss people, the ignorant discuss spelling.

The LDS accept the D&C as Scripture. Whether you do or not is immaterial.

I guess it was your different Jesus when he refused to go to any but the Jews.

That is a silly argument. Policy can and does change sometimes often. Doctrine not so much.

No. The ban was never a doctrine. The doctrine is that the Lord can extend to or withdraw from the Priesthood from whomever for whatever reason he wants. He does not answer to us. We answer to him.
The policy was that for a short time the Priesthood was not to be extended to the Blacks, and that someday that policy would change. That change came in 1978.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 07 July 2010 - 01:01 PM.

[DanGB]

I think Fitch may have a good and valid point here.  Has there ever been revelation that directs policy and practice of our sacred ordinances and/or blessings that is NOT deemed doctrine?

[thesometimesaint]

DanGB:

Without going into specifics. I would say that much of what happens in the Temple is not doctrine. But does in fact convey doctrinal ideas.

[DanGB]

thesometimesaint, on 07 July 2010 - 01:16 PM, said:

DanGB:

Without going into specifics. I would say that much of what happens in the Temple is not doctrine. But does in fact convey doctrinal ideas.

So are you concluding the temple ceremony is not doctrine?