Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blueglass

youth sunday school and gospel topics essays

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Also, that it was on FairMormon who said ¨never an official reason¨.

You need to provide a link when using quotes of other sites so that people can read them in context.

FairMormon wiki/answers content is written by individuals and while I think most authors who contribute do so with the intent of aligning with any public stance of FairMormon or the Church where applicable, I don't think one should assume "official" FairMormon position unless issued by the board/president such as the mission statement or anything officially stated by the Church.  This is not to wiggle out of anything, I just know how stuff is produced having seen it done for over 15 years, so I know that errors are there.  A lot gets polished up by people drawing our attention to needed clarification or editing.

I think if FM did have an official position on whether or not the Church has an official position, what was quoted would be it though.  I would need to hear how the use of the BY quote is described to see if I agree with it, as I think there are a few cases I would say offer reasons that were not intended in official statements as presenting a theory.  I disagree at times with the way things are written on our site.  Sometimes I agree with what is really meant because I know the reasoning, but find it poorly written.  As written I disagree with it, but whoever wrote it may be thinking of a clear cut announcement whose sole purpose is to declare " these are the reasons..." or something else.  I don't remember a time when I brought up a concern it wasn't edited for clarity as fellow members do generally take advice from each other seriously...or they don't last too long  :).  Don't remember mentioning this one.

 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/29/2019 at 9:38 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

While I agree, I don't think the missionaries can be blamed for being prideful. Missionaries are taught that they are special ministers called to preach the word of God by the spirit. By the spirit words can be put in their mouth to the convincing of all nations. The spirit will direct their teachings and will confirm the truth of all things.

IMO missionaries are trained to be prideful and arrogant. They are taught that they are emissaries of Jesus Christ, preaching with power and authority.

I've known a lot of missionaries. I was a missionary. I had an extremely painful discussion with missionaries just last week. I know better. But it's hard to blame missionaries for believing the hype about missionaries. In many cases, it's the only thing that gives them enough confidence to open their mouths at all.

Maybe not boasting in their knowledge prideful, but they were overconfident.  I had many episodes of overconfidence debating evangelicals, Jehovah's witnesses and atheists on the mission field and it was intellectually stimulating, but in this effort I felt like I was on my own trusting in the arm of the flesh.  Not to say missionaries can't be bold and articulate in communicating what they have learned of the weightier matters of the law.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 4/29/2019 at 3:48 PM, rockpond said:

Until the Brethren teach church membership that the the race-based temple and priesthood ban was a mistake, we will continue to get all kinds of explanations to justify it.  What else can we expect?  As long as it is held up as something that God wanted, our faithful and believing brains will seek explanations so that belief in prophetic leadership can be maintained.

It would be good to acknowledge these mistakes directly in general conference or in an official statement - something more authoritative than an essay.  Sister Renlund says a member of the quorum of the twelve acknowledged mistakes by leaders. https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/satellite-training-broadcast/2018/06/doubt-not-but-be-believing?lang=eng

"she was reading a book written by one of the Church’s leaders before he became the President of the Church. The book was written before the revelation on the priesthood in 1978 and suggested that, because of some things done in the premortal existence, those of African descent would not be exalted."

"Angelique asked for some help to understand why this would be the case."

"She was told by a current member of the Quorum of the Twelve that this former leader of the Church was wrong, plain and simple, and that he had simply stated his opinion, an opinion that was incorrect. "

Unfortunately when they repeated this same talk together to a wider audience at a BYU devotional in January 2019 they removed this example.  

Edited by blueglass
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/29/2019 at 7:41 PM, let’s roll said:

They have nothing to be saved from, they are innocent (unaccountable).  The scriptures characterize the baptism of children who have not yet reached the age of accountability (and those adults with developmental issues which prevented them from attaining accountability) as a “solemn mockery before God.”

TIC=tongue in cheek.

Interesting perspective.  You're saying Jesus being perfect had no reason to be baptized as a symbol of cleansing sin as he had no sins - therefore it was like baptizing a baby which is mockery before God, yet Christ's baptism was to "fulfill all righteousness".  In a sense Christ is teaching directly about the atonement by being baptized - he is burying himself in the sin-waters of the world notwithstanding he is innocent, he's showing that he is willing to take responsibility for the sins which have come into the world he created.  

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, california boy said:

It does feel a bit like gaslighting when members try to tell me that these doctrines were not taught from the pulpit, and in our classrooms, often quoting statements by apostles and prophets.  I grew up in the church in the 60's when the church was probably at its zenith in justifying the discrimination against blacks using these very statements and saying that the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse.  Now some are trying to say that never happened from any official sourse and were just rumors spread by rogue members.  Sounds more like selective remembering to me.

It is easy for me to move on from past mistakes.  It is much harder to move on when denial of past history is trying to tell us such teachings never happened by church leadership.  The trouble is, I remember as a young missionary regurgetating these teachings to those that questioned the ban on the priesthood.  Something I deeply regret, and also something that was what we were told to say.  We had district meetings and zone meetings telling us exactly how to deal with that question in particular, because it was a very big issue during my time serving in 1968.  For me, it is like someone trying to tell me the Vietnam War didn't really happen when I clearly remember it taking place.

Thanks for sharing what it was like as a missionary to receive those teachings or instructions as authoritative.  One note by Armand Mauss responds to Elder McConkie's famous quote, "forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whosoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation."  

Mauss quoted in Harris pg114, "anything but the most superficial reading of this speech [indicates] that it is in no way intended as a repudiation of all previous doctrine and policy relating to black members. Rather, it is primarily an argument that God bestows rights and blessings differentially on different peoples and that those of African lineage simply got their ‘turn’ at the priesthood sooner than expected."   
The Mormon Church and Blacks : A Documentary History, edited by Matthew L. Harris, and Newell G. Bringhurst, University of Illinois Press, 2015. 

Interesting that this is similar to the 2nd analogy the young Elders gave 2 weeks ago. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The teachings I think you are referring never carried the official Church imprimatur. They were always just theories. Had Correlation been in place as it is today, I think they would have been largely curtailed. Lack of correlation is indeed the problem.

 

Are you referring to a heavenly council which correlates the teachings of the quorum of twelve ?   Amos3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing save he will reveal his [sacred counsel] to his servants the prophets".  Just to clarify I hope such a heavenly council exists and exerts their influence.  

Edited by blueglass

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Seems like further disintegration of the prophetic role:  As I understand Scott, anything taught by prophets and apostles is just their opinion unless somehow (in some method that we are not privy to) the Correlation department signs off on it and deems it to be "official".

Elder Carmack told us that for general conference the seventies and auxiliary talks are submitted many months beforehand to the correlation committee and some times the entire talk or topic is rejected, heavily edited, and changed a few times before acceptance.  Do the quorum of twelve or first presidency members have any cross-checking on their remarks?  I know they self-edit their own work.   Their might be some significant edits before publication afterwards though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, rockpond said:

I like this statement from a 2018 article on By Common Consent:

"An analogical example would be a parent who explicitly explains that they have taken their child’s smartphone away because they were playing too many video games, and reiterates that explanation for decades, refusing to release the phone. It would be odd for someone to later claim that “we don’t know why the smartphone was taken.” We know exactly why the phone was taken. But in the case of the restriction, it was no fault of black members."

 

Brigham Young instituted the ban and he told us why he instituted the ban.  We can't claim it was a theory or that we don't know why the ban was in place.  The prophet who started it told us precisely why.

The article referenced is a good one.  Clearly historians felt slighted and frustrated by the new 2013 intro to OD2 including the writer of the gospel topics essay on Race and Priesthood.  Unfortunately it made it into the new seminary manual lesson 157 which my kids will receive in a couple weeks.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-7/lesson-157-official-declaration-2?lang=eng

Quote

Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.”

What questions about the priesthood restriction can be answered through this statement?

Point out the line that states, “Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.” Ensure that students understand that while some people may suggest reasons why males of African descent were not ordained to the priesthood for a time, those reasons may not be accurate. The statement just read represents the official position of the Church.

Another source of the origination of the "we don't know" position is referred to in a less publicized interview with Apostle Legrand Richards he had with two Christian missionaries in Aug of 1978. 

pg 115 of Harris, 

WALTERS: Will this [revelation] affect your theological thinking about the Negro as being less valiant in the previous existence? How does this relate? Have you thought that through?

RICHARDS: Some time ago, the Brethren decided that we should never say that. We don’t know just what the reason was. . . . [God] knows why they were born with black skin or white and so on. . . . We’ll just have to wait and find out.

WALTERS: Is there still a tendency to feel that people are born with black skin because of some previous situation, or do we consider that black skin is no sign anymore of anything inferior in any sense of the word?

RICHARDS: Well, we don’t want to get that as a doctrine. Think of it as you will. You know, Paul said “Now we see in part and we know in part; we see through a glass darkly. When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away, then we will see as we are seen, and know as we are known.” Now the Church’s attitude today is to prefer to leave it until we know. The Lord has never indicated that black skin came because of being less faithful. Now, the Indian; we know why he was changed, don’t we? The Book of Mormon tells us that; and he has a dark skin, but he has a promise there that through faithfulness, that they all again become a white and delightsome people. So we haven’t anything like that on the colored thing.


[The Mormon Church and Blacks : A Documentary History, edited by Matthew L. Harris, and Newell G. Bringhurst, University of Illinois Press, 2015.   LeGrand Richards’s interview with Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos, August 16, 1978, transcript in LDS Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah;]

Edited by blueglass

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Interesting perspective.  You're saying Jesus being perfect had no reason to be baptized as a symbol of cleansing sin as he had no sins - therefore it was like baptizing a baby which is mockery before God, yet Christ's baptism was to "fulfill all righteousness".  In a sense Christ is teaching directly about the atonement by being baptized - he is burying himself in the sin-waters of the world notwithstanding he is innocent, he's showing that he is willing to take responsibility for the sins which have come into the world he created.  

Not sure of the source of your confusion.  I’ve never said or implied there was no reason for Jesus to be baptized.  Jesus himself taught the reason, which you summarized quite nicely.

I pointed out that the same Jesus who was baptized told both a Book of Mormon prophet and Joseph Smith that there was no need for children who die in infancy to be baptized.

Christ didn’t see any conflict between His baptism and His teaching regarding not baptizing the unaccountable.  I don’t either.

I invite you to ponder the distinction between a being with agency being sinless and the state of unaccountability.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Not sure of the source of your confusion.  I’ve never said or implied there was no reason for Jesus to be baptized.  Jesus himself taught the reason, which you summarized quite nicely.

I pointed out that the same Jesus who was baptized told both a Book of Mormon prophet and Joseph Smith that there was no need for children who die in infancy to be baptized.

Christ didn’t see any conflict between His baptism and His teaching regarding not baptizing the unaccountable.  I don’t either.

I invite you to ponder the distinction between a being with agency being sinless and the state of unaccountability.

Jesus became as little child, as a "sheep before her shearers is silent" to allow himself to be crucified.  otherwise "he would send me more than twelve legions of angels" in defense. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...