Jump to content
Duncan

1st Pres. and NAACP

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not reaching the average active member in a way that they are changing hearts on this topic.  As evidenced by people on this thread.  

So it would seem, then, that unless and until everyone begins to agree with you, it's a sign that the Church is not effectively reaching people.

Or, there's another possibility: that they are being reached and then coming to their own reasoned conclusions.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe this has been discussed, but how exactly was it ever determined that a person was “black” enough that they couldn’t have the priesthood?  I’ve heard the “not one drop” phrase, but how was that determined before the days of DNA testing?  Not everyone knows their ancestry beyond a couple generations.  And just how dark would someone have to be to be considered “black”?  Barak Obama is only half black, but he is fairly dark skinned.  Meghan Markle is lighter skinned, but she is half black as well.

I’ve also heard it was only blacks with ancestry from Africa that were banned from the priesthood.  What about those with dark skin from Brazil or India or the aborigines from Australia?  Were they not considered “cursed”? 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not reaching the average active member in a way that they are changing hearts on this topic.  As evidenced by people on this thread.  

The average member knows very well the church's position on this issue. They have to change their own hearts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it would seem, then, that unless and until everyone begins to agree with you, it's a sign that the Church is not effectively reaching people.

Or, there's another possibility: that they are being reached and then coming to their own reasoned conclusions.

 

Of course I would love to convert everyone to my way of thinking.  :lol:

But, seriously, I'm just trying to get people to recognize where the Church has evolved on this issue in recent years, as we have some throwbacks here that aren't up to speed on the most recent Church teaching on this topic. 

People will always come to their own conclusions on any number of issues, but this issue is especially egregious because its not just about some speculative theological proposition, this is a position that has a real world impact on real people.  So when people continue to hold racist positions, thinking the church is backing those positions, I feel its very important to call attention to this.  

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The average member knows very well the church's position on this issue. They have to change their own hearts.

I don't see this at all from my observations and from what I read in the online community.  I wonder if there is any recent survey data we could look to that might show attitudes on this topic.   Maybe the Jana Riess survey will have some data when she publishes the full results.  Other than that I can't think of any recent polls or surveys that query Mormons on this topic.  

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Maybe the Jana Riess survey will have some data when she publishes the full results.  

Yes, the breakthrough we've been waiting for is when Jana Riess's survey results finally come out. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, the breakthrough we've been waiting for is when Jana Riess's survey results finally come out. :rolleyes:

The more data we can get to help us understand what is happening the better.  I can't tell, but are you prejudicing and dismissing the survey before even reviewing the data?  

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/22/2018 at 10:52 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

...when each and every member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve received and recognized pure revelation.

 

Just in case people forget, there were only 10 apostles who participated in the actual meeting where it was decided to rescind the ban.  Mark E. Petersen was on assignment in South America, and Delbert Stapley was in the hospital.  Both were informed after the fact that the revelation had come and was going to be published, and both supported it, but they weren't there for any deliberation or voting that may have been conducted during the process of receiving that revelation.

On a totally unrelated note, Petersen and Stapley had a record of being more "traditional" in their views on race and the Priesthood.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The more data we can get to help us understand what is happening the better.  I can't tell, but are you prejudicing and dismissing the survey before even reviewing the data?  

Unless it is international, it will only provide a partial picture.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Gray said:

I would suggest that the Holy Ghost is a metaphor for feelings of religious awe, and not an actual being, but that's just me.

As one who has actually had an experience with the Holy Ghost I can categorically say that you are wrong. Probably will have to wait until we both pass the mortal portals for us to be on the same page though.

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless it is international, it will only provide a partial picture.

True, but perfect should not become the enemy of good.  Some data is better than no data.  Will we ever get the complete picture?  

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

As one who has actually had an experience with the Holy Ghost I can categorically say that you are wrong. Probably will have to wait until we both pass the mortal portals for us to be on the same page though.

Glenn

How can you categorically say someone else is wrong when it comes to subjective experiences.  This is pretentious.  You're saying Gray's experience or my experiences are objectively wrong and your experience is objectively right?  How's that even possible? 

Another question is how is this even compatible with a gospel that preaches humility and empathy and the worth of souls that have different experiences in life.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Some data is better than no data.

Not always.  Studies have shown that increased mammograms may be correlated with greater death rates or lower quality of life  among women, because cancer cells that would likely have not grown sufficiently to harm a woman are found and then treatments with greater risks are used to kill these less malignant tumors.  I say may be because studies are ambiguous at times, but overdiagnosis is recognized as a huge issue.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/07/07/420585286/more-mammograms-may-not-always-mean-fewer-cancer-deaths

Incomplete data may be dangerous, demanding action when no action is better or because one is unable to distinguish between helpful action and damaging action to an effective degree yet.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not always.  Studies have shown that increased mammograms may be correlated with greater death rates or lower quality of life  among women, because cancer cells that would likely have not grown sufficiently to harm a woman are found and then treatments with greater risks are used to kill these less malignant tumors.  I say may be because studies are ambiguous at times, but overdiagnosis is recognized as a huge issue.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/07/07/420585286/more-mammograms-may-not-always-mean-fewer-cancer-deaths

Incomplete data may be dangerous, demanding action when no action is better or because one is unable to distinguish between helpful action and damaging action to an effective degree yet.

There are exceptions to every rule, but we shouldn’t let those exceptions hinder our exploring information, of course with healthy skepticism and critical thinking.  

I find it odd when people argue against something that hasn’t been published yet though, this raises a red flag for me that perhaps the argument is based in a predjudice rather than reason.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

How can you categorically say someone else is wrong when it comes to subjective experiences.  This is pretentious.  You're saying Gray's experience or my experiences are objectively wrong and your experience is objectively right?  How's that even possible? 

Another question is how is this even compatible with a gospel that preaches humility and empathy and the worth of souls that have different experiences in life.  

Have you ever had a revelation or any other type of communication from the Holy Ghost?

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

How can you categorically say someone else is wrong when it comes to subjective experiences.  This is pretentious.  You're saying Gray's experience or my experiences are objectively wrong and your experience is objectively right?  How's that even possible? 

Another question is how is this even compatible with a gospel that preaches humility and empathy and the worth of souls that have different experiences in life.  

Now, to the point. Gray has not indicated that he has had any experiences with the Holy Ghost. He was offering an opinion. Whatever you believe about the Holy Ghost or do not believe about the Holy Ghost is irrelevant because I have had an experience with Him that let me know that He is a real as you or I. If you have not had any type of communications from the Holy Ghost you are in no position to tell me or anyone else that the experience is/was subjective. But I know it happened and therefore can state unequivocally to that effect. I can therefore say that the idea that "Holy Ghost is a metaphor for feelings of religious awe, and not an actual being" is incorrect without being arrogant or lacking in empathy. You, Gray, or any other person has the  option of not believeing and labelling what I have said as hogwash, if you so choose. I really do not care one way or the other what you might think or say about it because I know what I experienced.

Glenn

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Have you ever had a revelation or any other type of communication from the Holy Ghost?

Glenn

Now you want to question my authenticity somehow?  This is insulting.  

22 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Now, to the point. Gray has not indicated that he has had any experiences with the Holy Ghost. He was offering an opinion. Whatever you believe about the Holy Ghost or do not believe about the Holy Ghost is irrelevant because I have had an experience with Him that let me know that He is a real as you or I. If you have not had any type of communications from the Holy Ghost you are in no position to tell me or anyone else that the experience is/was subjective. But I know it happened and therefore can state unequivocally to that effect. I can therefore say that the idea that "Holy Ghost is a metaphor for feelings of religious awe, and not an actual being" is incorrect without being arrogant or lacking in empathy. You, Gray, or any other person has the  option of not believeing and labelling what I have said as hogwash, if you so choose. I really do not care one way or the other what you might think or say about it because I know what I experienced.

Glenn

You’re jumping to assumptions about Gray now too.  You’re completely misusing the term subjective, do you even know the definition of that term?  Your unequivocal personal experience is not being questioned by myself or by Gray.  

I have every confidence that you experienced what you say you did.  I also have complete confidence that your experience is unverifiable for the rest of human kind.  It’s your experience, uniquely subjective and special for you.  You can say whatever you experienced about the Holy Ghost does not match up with my experiences.  That’s fine, and i expect people everywhere to have different experiences.  I’m also making no attempt to force my experience on you or my interpretations about what people are experiencing with respect to religious things.  

The difference here is you are trying to say that your experience gives you objective proof about the nature of the Holy Ghost that not only is true for you, but that applies to others as well.  I’m making no such claim from my end.  I’m only sharing my opinion based on my experiences and thoughts on the topic, but I’m making no claim that my thoughts take anything away from your personal experience.  That is the difference.  

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Now you want to question my authenticity somehow?  This is insulting.  

No, I was asking a question.

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You’re jumping to assumptions about Gray now too.  You’re completely misusing the term subjective, do you even know the definition of that term?  Your unequivocal personal experience is not being questioned by myself or by Gray.  

I never used the term subjective. I am not jumping to conclusions about Gray. I quoted his comments back to you, and I do so again, the entire comment "I would suggest that the Holy Ghost is a metaphor for feelings of religious awe, and not an actual being, but that's just me." My response is that I know from experience that the Holy Ghost is a real entity.

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I have every confidence that you experienced what you say you did.  I also have complete confidence that your experience is unverifiable for the rest of human kind.  It’s your experience, uniquely subjective and special for you.  You can say whatever you experienced about the Holy Ghost does not match up with my experiences.  That’s fine, and i expect people everywhere to have different experiences.  I’m also making no attempt to force my experience on you or my interpretations about what people are experiencing with respect to religious things.  

Yes, my particular experience is unverifiable for the rest of humankind, but an experience with the Holy Ghost is available to others who can then attest that the Holy Ghost is a real entity and not just a figment of their imagination(s).

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The difference here is you are trying to say that your experience gives you objective proof about the nature of the Holy Ghost that not only is true for you, but that applies to others as well.  I’m making no such claim from my end.  I’m only sharing my opinion based on my experiences and thoughts on the topic, but I’m making no claim that my thoughts take anything away from your personal experience.  That is the difference.  

There is no good analogy I can make here, but if something exists, it is independent of anyone's subjective or objective experiences.The Holy Ghost is represented in the scriptures as a real entity, a spirit. I have experienced that Spirit so I know he exists. It is not an objective or subjective, but a spiritual discernment. And, as I noted to Gray, we will have to pass through these mortal portals (or maybe the Second Coming) before we are on the same page. But you will get to meet the Holy Ghost at some point in time or eternity.

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

My response is that I know from experience that the Holy Ghost is a real entity.

This is precisely your subject experience, nothing more and nothing less.  

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Yes, my particular experience is unverifiable for the rest of humankind, but an experience with the Holy Ghost is available to others who can then attest that the Holy Ghost is a real entity and not just a figment of their imagination(s).

Others have experiences and those experiences are interpreted by them in the same way you or I independently interpret our experiences.  It’s all subjective.  It never tells us anything about how real or imaginary the Holy Ghost actually is in any objective way.  I would say that it’s all real in the sense that subjective experiences are real to the person experiencing them.  

11 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

There is no good analogy I can make here, but if something exists, it is independent of anyone's subjective or objective experiences.The Holy Ghost is represented in the scriptures as a real entity, a spirit. I have experienced that Spirit so I know he exists. It is not an objective or subjective, but a spiritual discernment. And, as I noted to Gray, we will have to pass through these mortal portals (or maybe the Second Coming) before we are on the same page. But you will get to meet the Holy Ghost at some point in time or eternity.

This is where I disagree with you and I think you are confusing terms.  Something is objective if it can be measured and described using tools of observation, the sciences operate in the realm of the objective.  

Religious experiences like you are describing cannot be measured and observed using those tools.  They are qualitatively different. 

My problem with your statements is an assumption on your part that your personal experience is somehow universally applicable to others.  This is naive and arrogant in my opinion.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Just in case people forget, there were only 10 apostles who participated in the actual meeting where it was decided to rescind the ban.  Mark E. Petersen was on assignment in South America, and Delbert Stapley was in the hospital.  Both were informed after the fact that the revelation had come and was going to be published, and both supported it, but they weren't there for any deliberation or voting that may have been conducted during the process of receiving that revelation.

I'm well aware of this.

Quote


On a totally unrelated note, Petersen and Stapley had a record of being more "traditional" in their views on race and the Priesthood.

 

To the extent this is true, all the more remarkable that they, of all the members of the Twelve, embraced the revelation wholeheartedly without having been there "for any deliberation or voting."

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

There are exceptions to every rule, but we shouldn’t let those exceptions hinder our exploring information, of course with healthy skepticism and critical thinking.  

I find it odd when people argue against something that hasn’t been published yet though, this raises a red flag for me that perhaps the argument is based in a predjudice rather than reason.  

The critical thinking, such as in withholding judgment when info is incomplete, is often missing though.

I would be more prone not to somewhat dismissive of demands for transparency if I hadn't seen what many do with what little they have at this point...such as claims about Pres. Packer's home based on its current assessed value, ignoring how long he had owned it and the price when he bought it, the work he had put into it, the growth in the neighbourhood, etc.

add-on:  not saying there aren't those who would be intelligent and respectful in their approach to Church finance info, just saying there is so much of the disrespectful variety, it has turned me off of the idea of transparency.

Tithing for me is a test of faith.  Ensuring it goes where it should before I donate eats into that challenge for me.  My view is probably colored by experience with relatives who would give gifts, but only if we jumped through their hoops first.  The hoops were always well meaning, but treating us as children when we were adults didn't help the relationships (buying a piano for my family, but we would have to pay for half of it if after a year our kids weren't daily practicing on it, for example).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, Calm said:

The critical thinking, such as in withholding judgment when info is incomplete, is often missing though.

I would be more prone not to somewhat dismissive of demands for transparency if I hadn't seen what many do with what little they have at this point...such as claims about Pres. Packer's home based on its current assessed value, ignoring how long he had owned it and the price when he bought it, the work he had put into it, the growth in the neighbourhood, etc.

add-on:  not saying there aren't those who would be intelligent and respectful in their approach to Church finance info, just saying there is so much of the disrespectful variety, it has turned me off of the idea of transparency.

Tithing for me is a test of faith.  Ensuring it goes where it should before I donate eats into that challenge for me.  My view is probably colored by experience with relatives who would give gifts, but only if we jumped through their hoops first.  The hoops were always well meaning, but treating us as children when we were adults didn't help the relationships (buying a piano for my family, but we would have to pay for half of it if after a year our kids weren't daily practicing on it, for example).

Hmmm, the last sentence in your comment struck me - it sounds similar to a works based Grace. 

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Hmmm, the last sentence in your comment struck me - it sounds similar to a works based Grace. 

And?

My dad's side of the family were a bit obsessive about controlling money even though they were allvery generous.  Came from imo real hardship during the depression as well as being from lower income who through hard work and self sacrifice became upper middle class, self taught what would amount to masters' these days kind of thing...and they wanted to be sure the next generations benefited from their experience.  It was never tied into Church teachings or spirituality.

add-on:  I also think you are stretching the likeness given the gift was given first, but was seen as more or less a contract where it would no longer be a gift and had to be paid if it wasn't 'treated properly...reality was gifts were never taken back, reasons were always found to let one keep them, but it left everyone feeling unsatisfied.  So for the next 25 years I refused to accept gifts with strings.  Much happier, if poorer (as I said very generous).

Purely Works based grace would be having to earn the gift first, thus once yours, always yours if I understand the theory correctly (it is not LDS teaching, so I may be wrong...not sure anyone teaches it really).  I would like to see someone who claims to teach works based grace, I have only seen those who teach against it by using caricatures of the others' teachings, imo.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:
6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

This is precisely your subject experience, nothing more and nothing less.  

How do you know???  To quote yourself.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is naive and arrogant in my opinion.

 

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:
6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

This is where I disagree with you and I think you are confusing terms.  Something is objective if it can be measured and described using tools of observation, the sciences operate in the realm of the objective.

I never said that my experience was objective. I am not confused on the terms. I said that my experience was spiritual, but none the less completely real.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

My problem with your statements is an assumption on your part that your personal experience is somehow universally applicable to others.  This is naive and arrogant in my opinion.  

I base my opinion on the scriptures and the related experiences of others. The scriptures tell us that the Holy Ghost is accessible to anyone that will seek Him. We have modern day examples of where people have been visited by angels and by prophets such as John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Elijah. It is hardly naive or arrogant to have had a confirming experience. I asked you about your own spiritual experiences to determine your level of experience in such things. One cannot describe something nor attest to the validity or invalidity of something they have never experienced. You acknowledged that you accept that I have had such an experience but yet you somehow know that I cannot know what it was, that I cannot know that the Holy Ghost is a real entity. You may not believe but that is as far as you can know.

Glenn

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Discrimination is discrimination.  It is absolutely the same.  It was just directed at a different socio-religious group, instead of a race. 

Are you saying that, for instance, requiring Catholic priests to be members of the Catholic church, is the same kind of discrimination as banning black people from a restaurant? Because those are the two kinds of discrimination you are trying to equate.

 

20 hours ago, pogi said:

So, not only did they discriminate, but they did so in a very condescending way.  That doesn't make things better.

This is nonsensical.

 

 

20 hours ago, pogi said:

So before Peter's revelation they were incapable and spiritually incompetent to understand Christ's gospel, and after the revelation, suddenly they were able to understand? Nonsense!  Because it sure seems to have spread far beyond Judaism fairly easily after Peter's revelation.

No, you're not putting enough effort to understand. Peter's revelation represents a transition period in Christian history, from Jewish reform movement to new religious movement.

 

20 hours ago, pogi said:

There was discrimination.  It doesn't matter how you twist it, it was discrimination by definition (just as it was with the blacks).  You are only making it worse by giving it a very condescending justification and tone for discrimination.

 

You're misusing the word discrimination in an attempt to equivocate. Why?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×