Jump to content

rockpond

Contributor
  • Content Count

    15,027
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8,542 Excellent

4 Followers

About rockpond

  • Rank
    Mormon Libertarian

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,711 profile views
  1. Isn't the very act of kneeling and praying to God a clear demonstration of "genuine, living faith"?
  2. Black church members call for anti-racism training in the church. https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/black-members-call-for-anti-racism-training-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/
  3. "Implying" and "PR speak"... you are interpreting what Colom said to mean spending money when he made no such statement about money. Perhaps he just wants the church to do as @juliann outlined. Here's the statement from the Medium post: We likewise call on government, business, and educational leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all. It is past time for every one of us to elevate our conversations above divisive and polarizing rhetoric. Treating others with respect matters. Treating each other as sons and daughters of God matters. For me, that high standard, to which President Nelson put his name, means that we should do more than an anonymous, ambiguous statement buried deep in our church website. If we want to "root them out once and for all" then denouncing and rebuking past racist doctrines and teachings should be done with the same force with which they were originally taught. That hasn't happened yet but likely will. Soon.
  4. The two issues I have with that statement are: 1. Prophetic teachings declared as doctrine and "law of God" are not regarded as theories. That is what makes this somewhat ambiguous. 2. This was published in an essay, buried several clicks deep (you need to know what you're looking for), without a named author. To have the full force of the previous racist teachings it should be taught in a similar manner by a prophet. (And I think it will, within the next year.)
  5. I'm taking what Colom said at face value. You are making an interpretation that he wants the church to spend money. You admit as much here when you claim it is "veiled PR speak": Prophetic teachings of doctrine and law of God are not considered "theories" by members. What has been said about "past theories" has been ambiguous enough to leave room for members to continue to believe things like the race-based temple and priesthood restrictions are of God.
  6. I agree and I think we'll hear it addressed in October General Conference.
  7. Typo: should have said "law" of God. Which is what the ban was called. By a prophet. It was also called doctrine, by a prophet. It is President Nelson calling on every organization to "review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all". That's the Prophet's standard, it's not one I made up. We haven't done that yet and we ought to follow President Nelson's advice on this. I bet we will... I think President Nelson has a special sensitivity to matters such as these and I think that in the coming months and years he'll lead the church in doing more to address it. I predict that within a year we'll have a clearer, more unequivocal statement declaring that the priesthood and temple restrictions were not of God and that they were mistakes of men.
  8. I don't think he realizes that he isn't doing it. I'm confident that he would not implore people to do something that he knows he isn't doing.
  9. You are claiming that Colom is demanding the Church spend money. You have provided no evidence to support such a conclusion. See my other posts in this thread. The Church has referred to theories. It has not denounced that which was taught as doctrine and law of God. Yes. I've heard members cite the priesthood/temple restrictions and prophetic teachings that supported the ban as justifying racist beliefs. I even had an actively serving bishop teach me that. That's fine but it isn't the standard the President Nelson espoused in his Medium post this week.
  10. It's a discussion board. If you believe discussing church topics is self-righteously throwing stones, I'm not sure why the board exists. Should it just be an echo chamber for whatever policy or teaching is currently promoted by President Nelson?
  11. That anonymous essay continues to suggest that these were simply theories when they were actually prophetic teachings declared to be doctrine and the log of God, based in scripture. Many church members that I encounter still believe that God instituted the racist priesthood and temple restrictions. I don't think the essay meets the standard given by President Nelson in this week's Medium post.
  12. There's nothing in there, even with your bold, that indicates the church has to spend money. That is your own interpretation and one that I disagree with. The Church has been clear in denouncing racism today. It has not been so clear in denouncing it's past racism and identifying those teachings as wrong. If racism has always been wrong, then the racist temple and priesthood restrictions were wrong and ought to be identified as such rather than continuing to allow members and others to believe that they were of God.
×
×
  • Create New...