Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Pres. Nelson to Speak at NAACP Convention

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

According to our prophet, revelation and unanimity among the 15 may be one and the same.

That reminds me of Brigham Young's commentary on D&C 38:27. In essence, we don't become His by first unifying. Instead, we are first made His through the common experience of revelation, and that makes us one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, rockpond said:

According to our prophet, revelation and unanimity among the 15 may be one and the same.

From President Nelson, Oct 2014:

"The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous. Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!"

 

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That reminds me of Brigham Young's commentary on D&C 38:27. In essence, we don't become His by first unifying. Instead, we are first made His through the common experience of revelation, and that makes us one.

So then, doesn’t this argue against the go-along-to-get-along approach to participation in Church councils? I ask, because I recall a discussion on this board in which some people insisted that it’s not realistic to expect unanimity in arriving at decisions in councils. President Ballard has taught otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

So then, doesn’t this argue against the go-along-to-get-along approach to participation in Church councils? I ask, because I recall a discussion on this board in which some people insisted that it’s not realistic to expect unanimity in arriving at decisions in councils. President Ballard has taught otherwise. 

I’m not familiar with that argument but I don’t think those comments speak to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m not familiar with that argument but I don’t think those comments speak to it. 

Hamba said we are unified through the common experience of revelation, suggesting that if a council is in tune with the Spirit, all members will eventually arrive at the same conclusion. How does this not speak to the notion that it is unrealistic to expect unanimity? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So then, doesn’t this argue against the go-along-to-get-along approach to participation in Church councils?

Yes, and I vehemently reject that approach — again based on repeated, and intense, personal experience. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hamba said we are unified through the common experience of revelation, suggesting that if a council is in tune with the Spirit, all members will eventually arrive at the same conclusion. How does this not speak to the notion that it is unrealistic to expect unanimity? 

Ah, I see.  Like I said, I’m not familiar with the argument that it is unrealistic to expect unanimity in our councils. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Ah, I see.  Like I said, I’m not familiar with the argument that it is unrealistic to expect unanimity in our councils. 

I had previously understood that in most instances, unanimity is highly preferred, but not necessarily required.  I wonder if I have been in error on this point.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Church priesthood quorums strive for unanimity in their decisions, in accordance with revelation (D&C 107:27). Until agreement is reached, the Quorum of the Twelve takes no action. Instead, the President of the Twelve usually defers the matter for reconsideration. Unanimity among the presiding quorums of the Church provides Church members with an assurance that "the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve" will never "lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Ensign 2 [July 1972]:88).

Here:

Quote

Unanimity is the ideal for all these decision processes because of the importance of unity in the Church: "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). The three presiding quorums over the whole Church are of equal authority within their own spheres (D&C 107:22-26), but their decisions are of "the same power or validity" only when made "by the unanimous voice" of the quorum (D&C 107:27). Many important decisions take shape over what seem like long periods because achieving unanimity is highly valued by the quorums.

Here:

Quote

Church leaders have taught consistently, as has been procedure since the beginning, that the establishment of new doctrine is done by canonization brought through unanimous decision (D&C 26:2; 107:27).

Brigham Young taught:

Quote

In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice; the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. Let the Elders get together, being faithful and true; and when they agree upon any point, you may know that it is true.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I had previously understood that in most instances, unanimity is highly preferred, but not necessarily required.  I wonder if I have been in error on this point.  See, e.g., here:

Here:

Here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Okay. 

Good quotes... they all seem to agree with my comments.  Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post

I would love for the church to donate some money to the Flint, Michigan residents to help them get clean water. That would be astounding! I give a lot of credit to NAACP for asking Pres. Nelson to speak. It is replete with humbleness and forgiveness of former LDS church policies/doctrine. No better example than that. They should be the ones who are applauded in spades!

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I would love for the church to donate some money to the Flint, Michigan residents to help them get clean water. That would be astounding!

https://www.facebook.com/379333218938680/posts/flint-water-crisis-memo-volunteer-donation-updatedate-january-24-2016from-lisa-p/444291445776190/
 

Also likely that funds were contributed to the Red Cross or other agency that was assisting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/18/2019 at 8:46 PM, SettingDogStar said:

Talking to some of my family who were adults during the 1978 priesthood lift many of them just thought it was cool but didn't think much else about it. They just thought that essentially "the prophet lifted it so that's all we need to hear." This approach is decent in some cases simply because sometimes there isn't a good answer, but I was surprised they didn't do a total 360 spin around in their chairs when they heard it. 

I don't think that response was typical. It was momentous. I remember where I was when I heard it. People cried. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Something interesting that the NAACP Historian said (2:20 mark in the above video) about the Church when he introduced president Nelson:

"They had the courage to say we have unfortunately been complicit in that evil of racism in this nation but unlike certain persons in America we are humble enough to say that we are sorry, we're going to change our ways"

So has an apology been given by the church or is he just interpreting the positive actions of the church as an apology without actually saying it? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Something interesting that the NAACP Historian said (2:20 mark in the above video) about the Church when he introduced president Nelson:

"They had the courage to say we have unfortunately been complicit in that evil of racism in this nation but unlike certain persons in America we are humble enough to say that we are sorry, we're going to change our ways"

So has an apology been given by the church or is he just interpreting the positive actions of the church as an apology without actually saying it? 

 

Wow... very cool.  Thanks for pointing that out.  It would seem that they apologized at least to the NAACP leadership.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Something interesting that the NAACP Historian said (2:20 mark in the above video) about the Church when he introduced president Nelson:

"They had the courage to say we have unfortunately been complicit in that evil of racism in this nation but unlike certain persons in America we are humble enough to say that we are sorry, we're going to change our ways"

So has an apology been given by the church or is he just interpreting the positive actions of the church as an apology without actually saying it? 

 

Good to know, I finally watched the beginining so far. I love that the historian mentioned homophobia in the list to abolish, maybe this will affect Pres. Nelson going forward. Love the movement here!

ETA: Now that I've watched his whole speech, I was excited that he and Sister Nelson attended a religious service of the blacks, to listen to their music, right after they were told that last year's celebration of 40 years since the reversal of the ban needed a little more spirit in it, lol.

I sure hope there will be change in the LDS wards' music coming up. We need something to bring the spirit in our chapels, vs. putting everyone to sleep. I really feel in my heart that something needs to be done. I'd love to attend a Sac Mtg like that.

Ever since my old stake had the Calvery Baptist Church choir visit a few times for a Christmas concert and clapping was allowed in the chapel along with standing up and swaying and really singing praise to the Lord. I'll never forget the chills I had as we all sang, "Go Tell It On The Mountain". That night's family prayer, my younger son was trying to be funny I guess, because after each pause he'd say "amen". The Baptists' in the audience had said that during the prayers that evening. But I love the black people and their love for the Saviour. 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Duplicate

Edited by Avatar4321
Duplicate

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/19/2019 at 2:56 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

In 1978 I was two years off my mission and enrolled at BYU as a journalism student. The general reaction among the membership of the Church was not nearly as blasé as you seem to think it was. To us, it was an event of epic proportions like the moon landing of 1969 or the JFK assassination of 1963. We remember precisely where we were and what we were doing when we heard the news. Moreover, there was a general euphoria that lasted for days and weeks afterward. 

If you’ve ever read Dallin H. Oaks’s account of his reaction when he heard the news, you can a flavor of how the vast majority of the membership felt. He was BYU president then. As I mentioned, I was a student on campus then, and I’m telling you his sentiment was typical. 

Hardly surprising that this was the reaction. The Saints rejoice taking the Gospel to more people. We always have

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I sure hope there will be change in the LDS wards' music coming up. We need something to bring the spirit in our chapels, vs. putting everyone to sleep. I really feel in my heart that something needs to be done. I'd love to attend a Sac Mtg like that.

I remember how after Gladys Knight joined the Church and she complained about the music and wanted to add something to energize it a little.  This led to her creation of the "Saints Unified Voices" choir. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

I'm not sure I follow.  President McKay didn't need the support of the Twelve to seek or to receive the will of the Lord with respect to lifting the ban.  He may have needed the support of the Twelve to implement any change, but he certainly didn't need it to inquire about the Lord's will concerning any change.  And before the receipt of the revelation lifting the ban, President Kimball "didn't have the support of the Twelve," either--at least, not unanimously.  Otherwise, why would Elder McConkie have needed to deliver his well-known "Forget everything that I have said ..." comment?  And if memory serves, all of the Twelve weren't present when President Kimball announced that he had received revelation on the matter.  An absent member of the Twelve (I forget who it was at the moment, and I believe it was someone who had opposed ending the ban previously), when contacted later and advised what had transpired in that meeting said, "I'll go with the brethren on this."

Agreed. If McKay received a revelation in highly skeptical thst the twelve wouldn't whole heartedly endorse and support it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I remember how after Gladys Knight joined the Church and she complained about the music and wanted to add something to energize it a little.  This led to her creation of the "Saints Unified Voices" choir. 

While I love the words of "I believe in Christ" (by Bruce R McConkie) the music is way too ponderous and slow paced.  Can Gladys make an upbeat one?  Get the blood flowing quicker?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/21/2019 at 10:47 AM, rockpond said:

In very simple terms I think it comes down to whether one believes the temple and priesthood ban was a mistake or whether it came from God.  If the former, than an apology is called for. If the latter, we obviously can’t apologize for something God did. 

I think that's right. There's more evidence that it was a policy by Brigham as more historic research has been done. But it's not entirely clear. Those pushing for an apology strongest tend to be those who for primarily theological reasons think it was just Birgham. As the number of priesthood holders who were black from before Utah increased, it increases the perception that it was purely a policy from Brigham theological views untethered to direct revelation. But again that does require dismissing Brigham's own views somewhat. As others have pointed out McKay's personal revelation of "not now" tends to get dismissed as well.

On 7/19/2019 at 9:40 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Could you elaborate on your point about “the failings of ... the general membership of the Church”? What specifically should we be doing that we have not been doing?

I think it undeniable that members took a "it's policy so I don't care" attitude for the most part. It was Kimball that personally really went beyond that. However even after the revelation I think far too many members simply didn't look at how their rhetoric might alienate black investigators or members. Nor question a lot of folk theology that had built up. There tended to be a view particularly in the 80''s of "if a GA said it it's true." Particularly a certain set of GAs more prolifically writing on theological issues like McConkie and others. While McConkie clearly repudiated many things he'd written prior to the revelation, I don't think he carified issues like fence sitters sufficiently.

But the bigger issue in my experience is middle class members understanding how people in poorer areas have a very different life experience. There's a definite feeling of discomfort for many new members not to mention difficulties with travel that I don't think suburban members really understand.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, longview said:
1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I remember how after Gladys Knight joined the Church and she complained about the music and wanted to add something to energize it a little.  This led to her creation of the "Saints Unified Voices" choir. 

While I love the words of "I believe in Christ" (by Bruce R McConkie) the music is way too ponderous and slow paced.  Can Gladys make an upbeat one?  Get the blood flowing quicker?

It's all a matter of culture and what people interpret as what the spirit feels like. In my opinion those high spirited songs they sing with the clapping and dancing around does not necessarily invite the holy ghost into your heart and soul;
it is more of an emotional response that is interpreted as being the spirit. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Something interesting that the NAACP Historian said (2:20 mark in the above video) about the Church when he introduced president Nelson:

"They had the courage to say we have unfortunately been complicit in that evil of racism in this nation but unlike certain persons in America we are humble enough to say that we are sorry, we're going to change our ways"

So has an apology been given by the church or is he just interpreting the positive actions of the church as an apology without actually saying it? 

 

 

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Wow... very cool.  Thanks for pointing that out.  It would seem that they apologized at least to the NAACP leadership.

You might want to take another listen to that in context. I wondered about it too, but it seems to me the man may have been referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson and his “Great Society” programs and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. 

At any rate, it is not the role of someone from an outside organization to announce that the Church is admitting error. So I would take what the man said with a grain of salt, even if he was referring to the Church in that portion of his introduction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Something interesting that the NAACP Historian said (2:20 mark in the above video) about the Church when he introduced president Nelson:

"They had the courage to say we have unfortunately been complicit in that evil of racism in this nation but unlike certain persons in America we are humble enough to say that we are sorry, we're going to change our ways"

So has an apology been given by the church or is he just interpreting the positive actions of the church as an apology without actually saying it? 

I think President Nelson's remarks transcend an apology, but those who gracefully wish to take them (or the year+ process of reaching out) as such will help move this collaboration forward along with its beautiful fruits.

If anyone would have verified an apology, this news organization would have eagerly done so, based on my observation of past behavior: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/07/22/naacp-convention-lds/

"Nelson did not apologize for the church’s previous racial policy, but Brown seemed to suggest the faith already had."

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

You might want to take another listen to that in context. I wondered about it too, but it seems to me the man may have been referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson and his “Great Society” programs and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. 

That's not correct.  I just listened again and you might want to do so as well.

Dr. Brown referred to President Johnson and Chairman Russell.  Those two men are current leaders of the NAACP.

  • Like 1

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...