Obiwan Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Yes. I consider both the LDS Church and the RCC to be sexist organizations. The RCC is making progress. About ten years ago, they let girl be alter servers.Well, just to let you know, your views don't impress me. I once left the Church once because of the Priesthood ban, polygamy, and women not having the Priesthood. But, I didn't have all the facts then. I made emotional judgements based on ignorance, rather than the actual facts on those issues. I couldn't understand how a "true" Church could do those terrible things. But, that judgement was ignorant and based on my modern sensibility's, not the whole truth, and certainly not "Godly" truth.The Priesthood isn't about Power and Authority, it's about calling. Men can't have babies either, that doesn't make God "sexist". You thus have a lot to learn.The LDS Church's exclusion of blacks from the priesthood was "bad." That is why Mitt Romney pulled over his car and cried when he learned of the "revelation."Wrong.... The "reason" he cried is because of joy, not because of a wrong being righted, but because he knew the blessings having the fullness of the Gospel and access to the Temple can bring to one in life. He was happy that ALL in the Church could now fully partake of the blessings the restoration brang. He cried because he knew the last vistages of racism was disappearing, not racism by the Church, but racism within the world, and thus the Church was responding, etc. I cry all the time in Church and otherwise. Does that mean I'm always crying because a bad thing became good? No, I cry for happiness also.Take another point. Do you think anyone "cried" when the Gospel after Christ's death was finally to be "allowed" to be given to the Gentile? I think they did. Romney and such people back then when a good change occurs are "happy for" others, not that they are happy the Church is no longer racist then or now. You view things through a lowbrow paradigm, rather than deeply in perspective and understanding of life, scripture, and people.The Church was "bad" in Christ's time, and it wasn't "bad" in our time. I understand how you arrive at your views, because I've had some of them myself. But you are so very wrong, and you do yourself, others, the Church, and God a disservice by spreading your falsehoods. Thou shalt not bear false witness, no matter how much you think you are right. Are you really right? Have you really done all possible, experienced and studied all perspectives well enough to understand the actual truth? No you haven't.
Jaybear Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 If we grant you it was "bad", and the revelation was "good," how do you feel about those protestant denominations that worshiped in segregated congregations, or didn't allow blacks in at all? Racist. How about those Ministers in the South who were also slave holders, or even KKK Grand Dragons? Racist. I will grant you that Americans, including Mormons, were, and in some cases still are, racist. I just find it interesting that even though the policy was changed 32 years ago through divine intervention, we continue to be bludgeoned in the media and on the message boards on this issue. I can understand why that bothers you. My best guess why its still an issue to Mormons but not to the others is because your Church purports to be led by modern day prophets.
LDS Truthseeker Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Interesting response. A pretty famous NT incident. Your observations about the Church in this area seems to suggest a lack of grounding in Christian theology. I can see how offensive the Church's history towards Africans would seem if you didn't know anything about how God was exclusionary.Because I am not familar with some obscure Bible passage, you berate me. What kind of christian are you?Now can we get back on topic if everyone is through trashing me?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 I can understand why that bothers you. My best guess why its still an issue to Mormons but not to the others is because your Church purports to be led by modern day prophets.And there is Jaybear's problem. That is the he thinks because if we claim to be lead by a prophet that must mean innerancy. Sorry Jaybear but there is absolutly no evidence of this anywere in scripture.And let me fix your statement. The reason it is a problem for you and not mormons (as it is not a porpblem for me) is because you and others like you think that being led by a prophet means that no mistakes can happen or if a mistake happens then it should be fixed in 60 seconds.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Because I am not familar with some obscure Bible passage, you berate me. What kind of christian are you?Obscure? Ok.
Skylla Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Some of you aren't contributing to the discussion at all and are being removed from the thread.Skylla
Pahoran Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 So who was wrong here - Joseph Smith for ordaining a black man to the priesthood or all the prophets after him until 1978 that denied blacks the priesthood?This looks a lot like the fallacy of the false dilemma.Which is not the sort of argument one ordinarily expects to see being made in good faith.So apparently God didn't tell the prophets why and all the prophets after Brigham just blindly did what their predecessors did until several factors like opening the Brazil temple and mounting public pressure practically forced them to change this prohibition.False.But thanks for playing.Regards,Pahoran
"Josh" Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I'm "Josh", Randy's friend. I do think that prophesy is a gift of the Spirit that God does bless people with today. I think that "traditional" christians understand the term prophet quite differently. I really believe we have to start with that. It seems to me that the lds view is that one living prophet, much like the old testament stands as the "mouthpiece" of God to humanity today. There are a number of differences between the lds prophet and old testament prophets - for one, there was not any vote on who the next prophet would be. I'll just be very straighforward here...... I honestly believe, to my core, that my "traditional" christian view of Jesus is so much different from the lds view that the result of his incarnation, his completed work, and the new covenant that he made with us is of a much different order of magnitude. Mark Driscoll, a pastor at Mars Hill Church puts Jesus in such great context in a very small book(let) entitled "A book you'll actually read On the Old Testament" I will paraphrase some of the amazing realities that the entire Bible is ALL ABOUT JESUS and everything changed when he came and died for us - including the view of and role of prophet........The central message of the Old Testament is the Hero of the true story of scripture, Jesus Christ. This written word reveals to us the incarnate ("in human flesh") Word of God, Jesus Christ. Defining this central message of the Old Testament is the key to our interpretive process because without a proper understanding of Scripture we do not have access to truly loving and knowing the real Jesus.The events preceding the incarnation of Jesus is a beautifully woven tapestry (by God) of humanity foreshadowing the fulfillment that Jesus came and accomplished. You will enjoy this
Bob Crockett Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Because I am not familar with some obscure Bible passage, you berate me. What kind of christian are you?Now can we get back on topic if everyone is through trashing me?It is not obscure. And I'm not berating you, and I try to be the best Christian possible but nobody's perfect.It is very hard to point out the weakness of somebody's point of view without coming across as offensive, I thoroughly admit. But, here's the deal. And I'm not really referring to you but to the particular kind of attack I see on boards.Many many people who are disaffected from the Church have, in fact, not really ever read their Bibles. Their view of Jesus is often what I would characterize as Neoplatonic, or New Age. The popular view of Jesus is as of a fellow with a sheep wrapped around his shoulders sitting around talking to children, loving all and condemning none. In reality, the Jesus of the New Testament was a brilliant Rabbinical scholar. He was quick to condemn faithless types. He understood the teachings of the prophets, including those who savaged Israel. He entered the Garden of Gethsamene with an armed retinue. He predicted that everybody who failed to follow him would be goats. And, as I have pointed out, his teachings were exclusionary. Speaking to a Canaanite (popular tradition today has them as being black during the NT era) was forbidden and He followed that rule until He found reason to break it. So, my question was a pretty simple one; what do you think of this passage? I mean, doesn't it show that God (i.e, here, Jesus) excludes and includes at will pursuant to His own purposes?There are other passages -- Paul condemns Peter as a "false brother" for refusing to eat with Gentiles. This shows that even the President of the Church can err on matters of race.
Pahoran Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 My relationship with Jesus is very personal, yes, there are chruch leaders that have a certain authority over me, yes there are people to whome God gives the gift of prophecy, but to say that the lds church has THE mouthpiece of God to the world - after pentecost and the Holy Spirit entered the hearts and minds of believers - is an undo-ing of a great part of the life, work and purpose of Jesus Christ.Really?How?Regards,Pahoran
Zakuska Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I'm "Josh", Randy's friend. I do think that prophesy is a gift of the Spirit that God does bless people with today. I think that "traditional" christians understand the term prophet quite differently. I really believe we have to start with that. It seems to me that the lds view is that one living prophet, much like the old testament stands as the "mouthpiece" of God to humanity today.We sustain all 15 as Prophets seers and Revelators every six months at General Conference.We also beleive in the Gift of prophecy in the church for those who are moved by the spirit. Isn't that what Moses wished for?Numbers 11:29And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord
Bob Crockett Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 My relationship with Jesus is very personal, yes, there are chruch leaders that have a certain authority over me, yes there are people to whome God gives the gift of prophecy, but to say that the lds church has THE mouthpiece of God to the world - after pentecost and the Holy Spirit entered the hearts and minds of believers - is an undo-ing of a great part of the life, work and purpose of Jesus Christ.The problem with this point of view is that the early Christians didn't believe this way; this sort of doctrine evolved out of the theology of Luther to a great extent and St. Augustine to a lesser extent.For the first 400 years of Christian worship, it was considered sin and error to fail to follow the bishops, who were considered the mouthpiece of God. "Obey the bishop and the presbyters with an undivided mind." St. Ignatius (in Bercot, p. 70.)
consiglieri Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 The central message of the Old Testament is the Hero of the true story of scripture, Jesus Christ. It's remarkable that millions of Jews have managed to completely overlook this central message.Welcome to the board, Josh.All the Best!--Consiglieri
TAO Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Why are prophets needed in the church?There are many reasons, but one of the most direct is perhaps, to tell us directly what God wishes to do, and the second reason is to recieve revelation for the church as a whole.For the first; Prophets speak the word of God (Deuteronomy 18:18, Ezekiel 3:27, Amos 3:7, 2 Peter 1:21, D&C 1:38). Why do they do such? I think it is to make it more direct for those who have a more difficult time listening to the Spirit. Trusting in the words of the prophets are for those who trust in words by faith, that is one of two ways to do things.The second reason, directing the Church, is important because sometimes the Lord needs us as a whole to do something, and in order for this to happen, he must instruct the prophet who has power to speak the words he commands. When the Lord needed the church members to move West, he did so by letting the prophet know, and thus, was the whole church able to move. It simplifies the process greatly, I think.
sunstoned Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Here's a few more:Predictable Canard TosserBoring Chestnut EnumeratorAntimormonism 101 ProstelyterFreshman Testimony LoserThe great apologist fall back strategy, the ad hominem attack. Way to go guys. I knew you wouldn
nicolasconnault Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 The vast majority of the work our 15 prophets do is unseen by the public, and revelation is ubiquitous through it all. We largely misunderstand the role of prophets if we think of them as faith-promoting, sign-making machines, expecting them to proclaim some exciting and controversial prophecies or to perform some Hollywood-style miracles.Simply put, it would be impossible for a global, multi-million-member Church to develop and operate according to God's will unless it was led by godly men, themselves directed by God.
nicolasconnault Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 The great apologist fall back strategy, the ad hominem attack. Way to go guys. I knew you wouldn
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 LDStruthseeker:Let me introduce Renee Olson.
LifeOnaPlate Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Tread lightly. Renee passed away last year unexpectedly.
Senator Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Simply put, it would be impossible for a global, multi-million-member Church to develop and operate according to God's will unless it was led by godly men, themselves directed by God.Out of fairness, such adulation would be deserving of many religious groups; the Seventh-Day Adventists, for example. How would we differentiate our(LDS)godly men as prophets, seers, and revelators, from their godly men who we claim are not prophets, seers and revelators?
nicolasconnault Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Out of fairness, such adulation would be deserving of many religious groups; the Seventh-Day Adventists, for example. How would we differentiate our(LDS)godly men as prophets, seers, and revelators, from their godly men who we claim are not prophets, seers and revelators?My comments were based on the premise that God only has one Church, and that the LDS Church is it.
cdowis Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Out of fairness, such adulation would be deserving of many religious groups; the Seventh-Day Adventists, for example. How would we differentiate our(LDS)godly men as prophets, seers, and revelators, from their godly men who we claim are not prophets, seers and revelators?The primary difference is the administration of the priesthood. A baptism without priesthood authority may be a noble act, by those who love the Lord, but it is not recognized.And that is why we need prophets -- to administer the authority and keys of the priesthood which are necessary to administer the ordinances for exaltation.
Hughes Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 The primary difference is the administration of the priesthood. A baptism without priesthood authority may be a noble act, by those who love the Lord, but it is not recognized.And that is why we need prophets -- to administer the authority and keys of the priesthood which are necessary to administer the ordinances for exaltation.Not recognized by whom? God? Sure doesn't say that in the Biblical text.
nicolasconnault Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Not recognized by whom? God? Sure doesn't say that in the Biblical text.Perhaps not, Hughes, but we LDS "believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and that He will yet reveal many great and important truths pertaining to the Kingdom of God". This includes the revelation that baptism is only valid when performed by proper authority, and that this authority is held only by the prophet of the LDS Church, who is authorised to delegate that authority.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 For the cultural context of the priesthood ban, see in BYU Studies vol 44 n 1 (2005) Book reviews by Stirling Adams for The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by David M Goldberg and Noah
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.