Be One (Teaser Trailer for the Celebration on the Priesthood)

[Maidservant]

Beautiful.  Love it.

 

[hope_for_things]

Nice video, sounded like Darius Gray narrating.  

Wish “be one” applied to all Gods children for Mormonism today.  LGBT aren’t wanted...  😢 

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

LGBT aren’t wanted...  😢 

Yes they are.

[Storm Rider]

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Nice video, sounded like Darius Gray narrating.  

Wish “be one” applied to all Gods children for Mormonism today.  LGBT aren’t wanted...  😢 

This is the distortion the LGBT community sells to any and all that will buy.  As Jesus of old invited all to repent, follow me, and if you actually love me, keep my commandments - the Church today has the identical invitation.  The LGBT community wants to enter only if everyone adopts to their gospel i.e. mold the teachings to fit their itching ears.  Jesus never did that; not once. He stood firm on truth and the gospel he taught.  The Church today does the same thing.

[mfbukowski]

Banned for political incorrectness.

 

Edited May 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Eek!]

"Oneness" is a pretty big concept, with many possible layers of meaning.  

Usually when the concept of "oneness" shows up in the scriptures, the context has to do with attaining a transformationally higher level.  Personally I think it's the highest thing we are called to do, but exactly what it means and how to do it isn't spelled out.  However the most common injunction in the scriptures is "seek, and ye shall find", or some variation thereof, so maybe that's one of the keys.  

I am irrationally hopeful.  This could be an invitation to evolve together towards that next level up. 

[Exiled]

I think it's problematic celebrating a ban-lifting that should never have been a ban in the first place.  I wonder why they are even doing it now when commemorating the ban-lifting wasn't celebrated before?  A 40 year anniversary isn't one that is necessarily singled out.  In any event, it's good that the ban no longer exists and is rightfully viewed as being man-made. 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think it's problematic celebrating a ban-lifting that should never have been a ban in the first place.  I wonder why they are even doing it now when commemorating the ban-lifting wasn't celebrated before?  A 40 year anniversary isn't one that is necessarily singled out.  In any event, it's good that the ban no longer exists and is rightfully viewed as being man-made. 

I am not entirely convinced it was man-made.

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not entirely convinced it was man-made.

Watch this from Darius Gray and you may change your mind, especially the part where he wrote to President Hinckley asking if it would be okay that he taught that God never condoned it but allowed it and Pres. Hinckley said yes. http://fox13now.com/2018/05/06/3-questions-with-bob-evans-darius-gray-of-the-genesis-group-on-racism-and-the-lds-church/

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not entirely convinced it was man-made.

I understand it may be hard to rationalize, but to have God condoning this is much worse.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Watch this from Darius Gray and you may change your mind, especially the part where he wrote to President Hinckley asking if it would be okay that he taught that God never condoned it but allowed it and Pres. Hinckley said yes. http://fox13now.com/2018/05/06/3-questions-with-bob-evans-darius-gray-of-the-genesis-group-on-racism-and-the-lds-church/

I want to accept that wholeheartedly and hope it is true but I am not sure.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Exiled said:

I understand it may be hard to rationalize, but to have God condoning this is much worse.

If making God look good is the sole concern I would agree but I try not to make doctrinal determinations based on what I believe I would do. If I were given the power of God now and was told to create a world with no more knowledge than I have now I would be tempted to leave out cancer, put systems in place to prevent humanity from abusing each other, make basic survival less difficult, and give people destined to wed matching birthmarks or something to help them choose, give all Priesthood holders lightsabers that operate via faith, and a number of other critical adjustments.

If what I want to believe of God is my main criteria for determining who God is then I am creating God in my own image. I do not enjoy that kind of God. One of the things I love about God is that I am, in a sense, working against something other than myself. God does not always agree with me. He pushes back. He does and communicates the unexpected. If He did not I would suspect God was a figment of my imagination.

I hope it is true that it was a man made mistake God allowed and I would not argue with someone who believed it but I am still not wholly convinced. In the same way I hope there is some consolation or healing revelation that will aid those who are homosexual. The same way I silently anticipate and expect that women will one day become Priesthood holders. I am just not sure about any of it.

Edited May 7, 2018 by The Nehor

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If making God look good is the slope concern I would agree but I try not to make doctrinal determinations based on what I believe I would do. If I were given the power of God now and was told to create a world with no more knowledge than I have now I would be tempted to leave out cancer, put systems in place to prevent humanity from abusing each other, make basic survival less difficult, and give people destined to wed matching birthmarks or something to help them choose, give all Priesthood holders lightsabers that operate via faith, and a number of other critical adjustments.

If what I want to believe of God is my main criteria for determining who God is then I am creating God in my own image. I do not enjoy that kind of God. One of the things I love about God is that I am, in a sense, working against something other than myself. God does not always agree with me. He pushes back. He does and communicates the unexpected. If He did not I would suspect God was a figment of my imagination.

I hope it is true that it was a man made mistake God allowed and I would not argue with someone who believed it but I am still not wholly convinced. In the same way I hope there is some consolation or healing revelation that will aid those who are homosexual. The same way I silently anticipate and expect that women will one day become Priesthood holders. I am just not sure about any of it.

I understand and hope healing can happen too. I remember the angst my parents felt prior to 1978 and the relief they and everyone else felt after. It's good it isn't still around.

[juliann]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I want to accept that wholeheartedly and hope it is true but I am not sure.

Darius took me on a personal tour of black pioneer graves and I have spoken to him many times. He told me this years ago and I believe him. He is one of the most remarkable men I have ever met.

[Tacenda]

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth, and be governed by it or not according to their wishes and abide the result; and that those who would be able to associate with the Gods in the eternal worlds. It is the same eternal programme. God knew it and Adam knew it. Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 22, p. 304

 

I had never heard or I don't remember, the quote by John Taylor. What happened to the mouth piece of the Lord are the prophets. How does one know what they say is true? I think like polygamy, this is a mark on the church that will never go away. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Tacenda

[cinepro]

On 5/5/2018 at 8:08 PM, Storm Rider said:

This is the distortion the LGBT community sells to any and all that will buy.  As Jesus of old invited all to repent, follow me, and if you actually love me, keep my commandments - the Church today has the identical invitation.  The LGBT community wants to enter only if everyone adopts to their gospel i.e. mold the teachings to fit their itching ears.  Jesus never did that; not once. He stood firm on truth and the gospel he taught.  The Church today does the same thing.

The Church teaches its version of what Jesus said and did.  It emphasizes some parts, creatively interprets others, and ignores the rest. 

It might be uncomfortable for Church leaders to adapt Christ's teachings to the acceptance of homosexuals living in monogamous marriage, but it could be done.  It would just require a little imagination on the part of the leaders, and patience, faith and flexibility on the part of the members.

The day is soon coming when all members of the Church won't remember a time when blacks couldn't have the priesthood.  I can imagine a similar day when Church members can't remember a time when homosexual couples weren't also welcomed as equal participants in the gospel, including Temple blessings.

[cinepro]

I'll also add that it would be awesome if the Church celebrated the 40th anniversary of OD2 by removing all of the "skin curse" scriptures from the standard works (especially those dealing with Cain, Ham and Egyptus).

Edited May 8, 2018 by cinepro

[rongo]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I'll also add that it would be awesome if the Church celebrated the 40th anniversary of OD2 by removing all of the "skin curse" scriptures from the standard works (especially those dealing with Cain, Ham and Egyptus).

How do you do that? Just leave lacunae everywhere where they were? 

The minute the Church does that, it has much bigger problems on its hands than it does with people who are upset because of the presence of "skin curse" scriptures.

They are part of the scriptural record. We claim to love "Joseph Smith Papers" - style critical texts, showing changes over time. Well, this is what the scriptures say and have always said. Let it stand, and don't monkey around with it just because it isn't PC by 2018 standards. 

I will never leave the Church, but I would be extremely upset and profoundly disappointed if the Church simply removed the skin curse scriptures from the BoM and PoGP. Especially since there are no treatments or explanations by key-holders about this. I'm sorry, but Paul Reeve's or Darius Gray's views on the matter aren't good enough for me. 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'll also add that it would be awesome if the Church celebrated the 40th anniversary of OD2 by removing all of the "skin curse" scriptures from the standard works (especially those dealing with Cain, Ham and Egyptus).

Presumably church leaders oppose genocide, slavery and rape, but those things remain in the standard works. Maybe as a warning against literalism or innerancy

[cinepro]

Just now, rongo said:

How do you do that? Just leave lacunae everywhere where they were? 

The minute the Church does that, it has much bigger problems on its hands than it does with people who are upset because of the presence of "skin curse" scriptures.

They are part of the scriptural record. We claim to love "Joseph Smith Papers" - style critical texts, showing changes over time. Well, this is what the scriptures say and have always said. Let it stand, and don't monkey around with it just because it isn't PC by 2018 standards. 

I will never leave the Church, but I would be extremely upset and profoundly disappointed if the Church simply removed the skin curse scriptures from the BoM and PoGP. Especially since there are no treatments or explanations by key-holders about this. I'm sorry, but Paul Reeve's or Darius Gray's views on the matter aren't good enough for me. 

If we look at the scriptures as being "for our day", then I think it's fair for the Church to say that those scriptures are no longer useful in our day.  It's not saying that those people and events weren't real.  It's not denying that they were ever in the scriptures historically (plenty of people and websites will see to it that they are never forgotten).

It's saying that if the scriptures are God's textbook for us in 2018, then we shouldn't be thinking about dark skin and curses and priesthood bans anymore. 

It would be like if the state of Missouri started having "be one" festivals in the 1960s and invited the Mormons to participate.  The Mormons might justifiably point out that even thought the Extermination Order of 1838 hadn't been enforced in over 100 years, it was still on the books and that didn't make them feel "as one" with the state.  And the state could rescind the order as a completely ceremonial gesture (which it did in 1976).  

Likewise, there's a lot in the scriptures that is allegorical, metaphorical, or mythical (as is constantly pointed out on this forum).  There would be nothing wrong with the Church saying that while these verses were in the scriptures historically, they aren't something the Church wants taught anymore, and we aren't sure of their veracity in the first place.

[cinepro]

Just now, Gray said:

Presumably church leaders oppose genocide, slavery and rape, but those things remain in the standard works. Maybe as a warning against literalism or innerancy

If those scriptures had been used by modern LDS to justify a Church-wide policy of decades of genocide, slavery and rape, then I would also suggest removing those scriptures as well.

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If those scriptures had been used by modern LDS to justify a Church-wide policy of decades of genocide, slavery and rape, then I would also suggest removing those scriptures as well.

Some of them may have been used to justify the pro-slavery stance in the Young era.

[Maestrophil]

On 5/5/2018 at 8:17 PM, hope_for_things said:

Nice video, sounded like Darius Gray narrating.  

Wish “be one” applied to all Gods children for Mormonism today.  LGBT aren’t wanted...  😢 

Boo to this comment!  LGBT are wanted - and obedience is the standard for them as well as for heterosexual people.  LGBT and Cis people who keep the commandments are all worthy of the same blessings!

[Maestrophil]

I might have had my allergies flare up when I watched this.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The Church teaches its version of what Jesus said and did.  It emphasizes some parts, creatively interprets others, and ignores the rest. 

It might be uncomfortable for Church leaders to adapt Christ's teachings to the acceptance of homosexuals living in monogamous marriage, but it could be done.  It would just require a little imagination on the part of the leaders, and patience, faith and flexibility on the part of the members.

The day is soon coming when all members of the Church won't remember a time when blacks couldn't have the priesthood.  I can imagine a similar day when Church members can't remember a time when homosexual couples weren't also welcomed as equal participants in the gospel, including Temple blessings.

Good on ya; I just have a different opinion. Yes, it is absolutely possible to convince people that black is really white and white is really black; that evil is really righteousness and righteousness is really evil; and that sin is not really sin.  The day the Church plays this type of shtick is when I will know the Church is not long The Church of Jesus Christ.  Just a very clear difference of opinion between us.