Survey Re: Lds Beliefs On Race

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

Who really cares what a small minority religion, that they don't belong to, believes? I sure don't get all bent out of shape about what the Zoroastrians believe. I don't get all bent out of shape for what the Catholics believe either, and there is over a billion Catholics. I simply don't believe as they do. Big deal. They and anyone else can believe any silly thing they want as long as they allow me to believe any silly thing I want.

If we believe that the Bible accurately tells what the beliefs of the Jews and early Christians were ALL we have is historical evidence from the Bible that the Ban has applied to various groups. Starting with the first born male son of a High Priest from the tribe of Levi.

[BCSpace]

ALL we have is historical evidence from the Bible that the Ban has applied to various groups. Starting with the first born male son of a High Priest from the tribe of Levi.

Doctrinally, we have significantly more than that.

[thesometimesaint]

True, but I was making the point that it is far older than just the Mormons.

[Pahoran]

This is such an accurate and insightful response. And what is becoming more and more obvious is that everyone outside of the Church can see this so easily. I think many of the younger members within the Church are coming to this conclusion as well.

Try as it may, the Church will never be able to put this to rest nor find itself on a defensible side until it issues a formal apology.

Apology to whom? Apology for what?

Let's be clear on this point: the Priesthood is in no sense a "right," much less a "civil right." It is owed to precisely nobody. In the parable of the labourers, did the farmer apologise to anybody for giving them what he promised?

The Priesthood is a privilege to which nobody is entitled. On what basis, therefore, is anyone owed an apology?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

Analytics:

Who really cares what a small minority religion, that they don't belong to, believes? I sure don't get all bent out of shape about what the Zoroastrians believe. I don't get all bent out of shape for what the Catholics believe either, and there is over a billion Catholics. I simply don't believe as they do. Big deal. They and anyone else can believe any silly thing they want as long as they allow me to believe any silly thing I want.

If we believe that the Bible accurately tells what the beliefs of the Jews and early Christians were ALL we have is historical evidence from the Bible that the Ban has applied to various groups. Starting with the first born male son of a High Priest from the tribe of Levi.

There are really two issues here.

With regards to who cares, the answer is lots of people care—Mormons and non-Mormons alike. Just because you are apathetic about other religions doesn’t mean people ought to be apathetic about yours. Your point makes me imagine some missionaries giving the following door approach: "Hi! I'm Elder Smith and this is my companion Elder Young. We don't care what you believe, and you shouldn't care about what we believe either. May we come in?"

Regarding your specific claim that in Bible times the ban has applied to different groups, lots of people don’t find that approach satisfactory. Saying almost all races and lineages are excluded is one thing, singling out a single specific race—which happens to have a recent history of facing severe racial discrimination—is something else.

[Analytics]

Apology to whom? Apology for what?

Let's be clear on this point: the Priesthood is in no sense a "right," much less a "civil right." It is owed to precisely nobody. In the parable of the labourers, did the farmer apologise to anybody for giving them what he promised?

The Priesthood is a privilege to which nobody is entitled. On what basis, therefore, is anyone owed an apology?

Regards,

Pahoran

Let's assume for the moment that the ban origintated from past prophets and not from God. In that case, I'd suggest God is owed an apology for the racist beliefs that well-meaning Mormons have attributed to Him, and the stumbling block that this mistake has caused.

[Bob Oliverio]

I don't think that non-LDS interpretations of LDS beliefs is a sound indicator of accuracy.

Then tell us what you found inaccurate in the response.  As a new member I thought it was extremely accurate, insightful and fair.

I also don't think that an apology is warranted, let alone that it would make any meaningful difference in the churches ability to accomplish its 4-fold mission.

No disrespect intended here but I couldn't disagree with you more.  It's very difficult to think that the Church has no idea if the ban on the black race was not a revelation from God.  We just heard in Conference that we are a Church led by "revelation".  We have admonished everyone who tries to infer doctrine from that which is not contained in our standard works.  An answer of "we don't know if it was doctrine" puts all discipline of doctrine in question.  We, meaning most members, know it was racist and are becoming more and more embarrassed by the non-answers we have to defend.

I truly pray that President Monson will have the guts, conviction and spiritual understanding to lead the Church into doing the only thing it can and apologize.  Through no fault of his own, he has been painted into much the same corner as President Kimball was. And I believe, beyond doubt, that most members and the public will forget in a month if he threw the erroneous past leaders under the bus than either continue in ignorance or attempt to throw our Heavenly Father under the bus.

[Pahoran]

Let's assume for the moment that the ban origintated from past prophets and not from God. In that case, I'd suggest God is owed an apology for the racist beliefs that well-meaning Mormons have attributed to Him, and the stumbling block that this mistake has caused.

Except that that case hasn't been established, so your argument is moot.

And we apologise to God in prayer, not in grandiose public displays.

So I take it, then, that you agree that no mortal is owed any apology?

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

I never ceases to amaze and amuse me that anyone outside the faith would have enough interest in the Church to try and tell it what it "Really Believes". I never said I was apathetic. I just have no interest in telling them what they "Really Believe". I let religions, and the various sects, and subsects, speak for themselves on what they "Really Believe".

I can't imagine any missionary saying any such thing. I can imagine them saying that we are representaitves of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would you like to know more? On the nonreligious front I can't imagine a Ford/Chevy/Toyota/-/-/ representative saying that either. But I could be wrong.

I didn't say it was satisfactory all I said was that it happened. If we believe the Bible to be the word of God then there is no denying that God for his own purposes has limited the Priesthood pretty much the entire span of human history.

As to your claim that it was racist. The term race itself has changed over time. At one time being Welch was considered a race. Other times it was considered a specific religion. Other times a specific nationality or member of the certain empire. To me and many others there is but one race. The race of God the human race.

BTW. Virtually every Mormon that I know of was delighted with the lifting of the Ban.

Edited April 2, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

Then tell us what you found inaccurate in the response. As a new member I thought it was extremely accurate, insightful and fair.

Who said I found anything inaccurate in the response? All I was questioning was your fallacious appeal to the perception of non-members.

No disrespect intended here but I couldn't disagree with you more. It's very difficult to think that the Church has no idea if the ban on the black race was not a revelation from God. We just heard in Conference that we are a Church led by "revelation". We have admonished everyone who tries to infer doctrine from that which is not contained in our standard works. An answer of "we don't know if it was doctrine" puts all discipline of doctrine in question. We, meaning most members, know it was racist and are becoming more and more embarrassed by the non-answers we have to defend.

I truly pray that President Monson will have the guts, conviction and spiritual understanding to lead the Church into doing the only thing it can and apologize. Through no fault of his own, he has been painted into much the same corner as President Kimball was. And I believe, beyond doubt, that most members and the public will forget in a month if he threw the erroneous past leaders under the bus than either continue in ignorance or attempt to throw our Heavenly Father under the bus.

No disrespect taken, and none intended, but in relation to the restored gospel, I believe you are focusing on the wrong issues and questions, likely because, as previously intimated, you aren't correctly understanding what the purpose of the gospel is, and your role in relation thereto. It may help you to instead of praying to God for revelations to appease the race-baiters and capitulate to the whims of pop culture and allow you to usurp the role of Christ in judging and advising his chosen leaders, perhaps it may be in your interest to pray to God to help you focus your attention on matters of salvific import and reveal to you how you personally may best work in fulfilling the 4-fold mission of the church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Then tell us what you found inaccurate in the response. As a new member I thought it was extremely accurate, insightful and fair.

As a long-standing member who understands the fallacy of the false dilemma, I know that it was none of those things.

No disrespect intended here but I couldn't disagree with you more. It's very difficult to think that the Church has no idea if the ban on the black race was not a revelation from God. We just heard in Conference that we are a Church led by "revelation". We have admonished everyone who tries to infer doctrine from that which is not contained in our standard works. An answer of "we don't know if it was doctrine" puts all discipline of doctrine in question. We, meaning most members, know it was racist and are becoming more and more embarrassed by the non-answers we have to defend.

Permit me to correct that last statement. You have no standing to speak for "most members." Try to be a little less presumptuous.

I truly pray that President Monson will have the guts, conviction and spiritual understanding to lead the Church into doing the only thing it can and apologize.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear to you, Mister Olivero: you are completely unqualified to judge of the "guts, conviction and spiritual understanding" of President Monson. Your own courage reaches its pinnacle in a craven surrender to every murmuring you hear; your "conviction" cannot stand up to the merest breath of criticism and your "spiritual understanding" is not even in the same hemisphere, let alone in the same ballpark, as President Monson's. Your arrogance in presuming to judge his "guts, conviction and spiritual understanding" -- i.e. his fitness to lead the Lord's Church -- is only matched by your complete failure to measure up to the heels of his shoes in those matters.

Just so you know.

You speak of "guts." Perhaps you need to obtain some for yourself. If your courage is unequal to being a member of a church that does not have a perfectly sanitised 21st century race relations record throughout its history, then I am sorry for you.

Through no fault of his own, he has been painted into much the same corner as President Kimball was. And I believe, beyond doubt, that most members and the public will forget in a month if he threw the erroneous past leaders under the bus than either continue in ignorance or attempt to throw our Heavenly Father under the bus.

You are merely repeating the fallacy of the false dilemma. If you don't know what that is, I suggest you look it up.

The Priesthood ban ended thirty-four (that's 34) years ago. It is a historical footnote that affects no-one now living. Your ridiculous demand that the Church prostrate itself in obsequious sycophancy to people who were in no sense harmed by not receiving something they were not entitled to in the first place, is ample evidence that you are unable or unwilling to cope with being a member of a community of believers in any degree of tension with wider society. Those of us who really have "guts" don't share that problem.

For the Church to apologise for not ordaining someone, it would first have to accept that it is obligated to ordain everyone who wants to be ordained. As everyone who has even the most elementary understanding of the Priesthood knows, it has no such obligation. It has never had any such obligation.

Tell us, Mister Olivero: what else do you need the Church to "apologise" for or otherwise change so that you can be perfectly comfortable and unchallenged in it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Oliverio]

Who said I found anything inaccurate in the response? All I was questioning was your fallacious appeal to the perception of non-members.

And in this response is where you lose credibility.  My praise and admiration was for the content of the response.  You have nothing of value to add, acknowledging that there is nothing inaccurate or unfair within it's content, other than it came from someone with different religious beliefs than you.  Again, go back to the conference talks of this weekend and you'll find you got a little work to do brother!!!

No disrespect taken, and none intended, but in relation to the restored gospel, I believe you are focusing on the wrong issues and questions, likely because, as previously intimated, you aren't correctly understanding what the purpose of the gospel is, and your role in relation thereto. It may help you to instead of praying to God for revelations to appease the race-baiters and capitulate to the whims of pop culture and allow you to usurp the role of Christ in judging and advising his chosen leaders, perhaps it may be in your interest to pray to God to help you focus your attention on matters of salvific import and reveal to you how you personally may best work in fulfilling the 4-fold mission of the church.

Again, I think you can benefit from some talks over this past weekend and let the rest of us think for ourselves and reach our own educated and well though out conclusions.  I am quite sure, and my career has aptly demonstrated to me, I am quite confident in performing my own thinking.  But thank you nonetheless.  If your attempt, as we were advised not to, was to use personal judgement and insult against my response - I do forgive you!

[Analytics]

Analytics:

I never ceases to amaze and amuse me that anyone outside the faith would have enough interest in the Church to try and tell it what it "Really Believes". I never said I was apathetic. I just have no interest in telling them what they "Really Believe". I let religions, and the various sects, and subsects, speak for themselves on what they "Really Believe"...

BTW. Virtually every Mormon that I know of was delighted with the lifting of the Ban.

Just to be clear, I'm the first to say that Mormons generally aren’t racist. My only point on this thread is that by not taking a more definitive stand on the issue, the church is hurting itself and some of its members. It is certainly your prerogative to believe whatever you want, and it is certainly the church’s prerogative to do whatever it wants. I'm just stating my personal belief that I agree with what Armand Mauss would probably counsel the church to do in order to put this issue to rest.

Except that that case hasn't been established, so your argument is moot.

The Church hasn't definitevely declared that the ban was from God, so the possibility that God is owed an apology is certainly a possibility.

So I take it, then, that you agree that no mortal is owed any apology?

I wouldn't say anybody is "owed" an apology, but I do think it would be in the Church's best interest to make a definitive statement about where the ban came from and to apologize to the people who have been hurt by the culture of racialist rationalization and speculation that festers.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Analytics

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

For his own purposes God has so far not told his reasoning for any of the Bans. I eagerly await such, but if history is any clue I'm in for a long wait. Maybe in the next life.

[wenglund]

And in this response is where you lose credibility. My praise and admiration was for the content of the response. You have nothing of value to add, acknowledging that there is nothing inaccurate or unfair within it's content, other than it came from someone with different religious beliefs than you. Again, go back to the conference talks of this weekend and you'll find you got a little work to do brother!!!

I am not sure what is causing your comprehension problems in this case, but I was intentionally silent about whether the statement was accurate or not. Yet, here you are for the second time falsely assuming that I have. And, ironically, you think I am the one losing credibility. It makes me smile dear brother.

Again, I was simply pointing out the fallacy of appeal to outsiders.

I can't imagine anything that was said during conference that will somehow magically make right your false assumptions regarding what I said, or somehow make non-fallacious your appeal to outsiders. However, I am open to you trying. Consider this a CFR.

Again, I think you can benefit from some talks over this past weekend and let the rest of us think for ourselves and reach our own educated and well though out conclusions. I am quite sure, and my career has aptly demonstrated to me, I am quite confident in performing my own thinking. But thank you nonetheless. If your attempt, as we were advised not to, was to use personal judgement and insult against my response - I do forgive you!

Let's see, you presumed to sit in judgment and insult and advise Christ's chosen leaders, and when I called you on it and advised minding your own salvific business, you think I am the one in need of forgiveness. Really, you seem to have a thing for unwitting irony my dear brother. With all your self-assumed education, perhaps it may be wise for you to now get a clue. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-