Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) You fail! Prove that skin color changes to white after baptism! I WANT THE PROOF!!!Nobody made that claim. Your constant deflections into irrelevancies has established, to my satisfaction, that you do not, in fact, understand the question being asked.Let's see what President Kimball said.The day of the Lamanites is nigh.Right or wrong? If wrong, what evidence contradicts it?For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.Right or wrong? If wrong, what evidence contradicts it?In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as AngIos; five were darker but equally delightsome.Right or wrong? If wrong, what evidence contradicts his claim, backed by a photograph, that there were 15 Lamanite missionaries as light as Anglos, and 5 that were darker, in that photograph?The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.Right or wrong? If wrong, what statistical studies prove that it is not the case that as of the time President Kimball spoke, the children in the home placement program in Utah were not often lighter than their brothers or sisters in the hogans on the reservation?Put up, or shut up. Edited June 12, 2012 by Log
zelder Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 How about Helvecio Martins and millions of South American members like him? White and delightsome or pure and delightsome? http://gapages.com/martih1.htmI'm sorry log. Kimball was wrong. Baptism does not change skin color. It's racist and embarrassing to say such a thing.
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) I'm sorry log. Kimball was wrong. Baptism does not change skin color. It's racist and embarrassing to say such a thing.I'm sorry, Zelder - you are wrong. Kimball did not say, in the statement at issue, that baptism changes skin color. It's embarrassing to publicly demean the Prophet of the Lord by putting words into his mouth and calling him embarrassing and racist as if he said those words - at least, I would be embarrassed were someone able to substantiate my having demeaned him in such a fashion.Apparently, you don't feel the same. Edited June 12, 2012 by Log
zelder Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I'm sorry, Zelder - you are wrong. Kimball did not say, in the statement at issue, that baptism changes skin color. It's embarrassing to publicly demean the Prophet of the Lord by putting words into his mouth and calling him embarrassing and racist as if he said those words - at least, I would be embarrassed were someone able to substantiate my having demeaned him in such a fashion.Apparently, you don't feel the same.Kimball was wrong. The Book of Mormon does not promise that the lamanites would become white and delightsome. It was a printing error!!! HE WAS WRONG! What was Kimball implying by suggesting that they are becoming white? Was he suggesting that being white is superior to being darker? Is there anything wrong with being darker? This is racism!
Storm Rider Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) delete Edited June 12, 2012 by Storm Rider
zelder Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 deleteThe link states that the change was made in 1840. Are you saying this is not true?
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Kimball was wrong.Then it should be easy to produce evidence that he was, in fact, wrong. Strangely, you have yet to provide any - at all. The Book of Mormon does not promise that the lamanites would become white and delightsome. It was a printing error!!! HE WAS WRONG! This is how it read in the 1830 edition, as well as the 1837 edition:"And then shall they rejoice, for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."It is true that Joseph changed that, in 1840, to read "they shall be a pure and a delightsome people." The original text was, however, "white," and not "pure." President Kimball's view that the Lamanites were, in fact, becoming white and delightsome, was based on evidence which he shared. He concluded that this phenomenon is a fulfillment of the Book of Mormon prophecy. Do you have an alternative interpretation of the evidence President Kimball shared that divorces it from the prophecy in the Book of Mormon?What was Kimball implying by suggesting that they are becoming white? Kimball was implying nothing. He was explicitly stating that he saw evidence that they were becoming white and delightsome.Was he suggesting that being white is superior to being darker?He nowhere said so in the statement at issue.Is there anything wrong with being darker?He nowhere said so in the statement at issue.This is racism!No, what you are engaged in is mind-reading, putting words in the Prophet of the Lord's mouth, publicly demeaning him, and libelling him.You and Zelder have been removed from the thread.
zelder Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Log - I'm getting the idea that you believe that Kimball was not just greater than the modern leaders of the church but also greater than the founder. The current modern leaders say the there is no prophecy about becoming white but rather pure. Joseph Smith indicated that the prophecy about becoming white was wrong but rather it is that they will become pure. You stand alone. You stand against the living prophet and the current teachings of the church. You stand in opposition to the church doctrine and position. You are not defending the church, you are now in opposition to it.
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Log - I'm getting the idea that you believe that Kimball was not just greater than the modern leaders of the church but also greater than the founder.Then your misconceptions transcend the topic of discussion.The current modern leaders say the there is no prophecy about becoming white but rather pure.Not only is this not related to the topic of discussion, but I am unable to find even a single leader saying "there is no prophecy about the Lamanites becoming 'a white and a delightsome people'." Elder Bruce R. McConkie in 1985 noted the change from "white" to "pure," said it was of special interest, and nothing else.Joseph Smith indicated that the prophecy about becoming white was wrong but rather it is that they will become pure.That Joseph changed the text is, of course, true, as I noted above. It doesn't necessarily mean the original text was wrong. You stand alone.I agree that I appear to stand alone in not speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.You stand against the living prophet and the current teachings of the church.I believe at the day of resurrection, if you truly hold that position, you shall indeed find yourself surprised.You stand in opposition to the church doctrine and position.I believe at the day of resurrection, if you truly believe that tripe, you shall indeed find yourself surprised.You are not defending the church, you are now in opposition to it.In this, I am defending President Kimball, who was acting in his office as the Lord's anointed, an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from the calumny of persons with demonstratedly poor reading skills but a great penchant for making men into offenders for a word. He did not say what you have not scrupled to put into his mouth and accused him of racism over. You have defamed and libeled him. Edited June 12, 2012 by Log
thesometimesaint Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Zelder:No he isn't. There is only one person that is infallible and no mortal is him.
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 The prophet is infallible.President Kimball was Elder Kimball when he made that statement. Nevertheless, he saw evidence, and interpreted that evidence in light of the text of the scriptures as he received them (which also happens to be the original text of the scriptures in question).
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 The only time the word "infallible" is used in scripture is in Acts 1:3, in which the author of the text considers the "proofs" of the 40-day ministry by which Christ showed Himself alive after His passion to be "infallible." I don't even know what it would mean for a person -- including God -- to be "infallible"; every Intelligence learns line upon line precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, from one small degree to another. It's evolution; it's eternal progression. Inasmuch as we err, it will be made manifest if we search out words of wisdom and are willing to be instructed, by gathering all the good and true from the best books and accepting that truth from wherever it may come from. If we declare anyone infallible, we've shut off continuing revelation.If we're searching for idealized Platonic perfection, we're never going to find it, because at the slightest crack the entire thing comes crashing down and there goes our faith. The "perfection" spoken of in scripture is not the unchanging flawlessness of Greek philosophy; it's about completing a Work. Perfectus = completed; perficere = accomplish, finish; per = completely, facere = to perform.So "perfect" occurs quite a bit in scripture, but it usually refers to the "completion" of the resurrected body (i.e., a physical form not subject to disintegration) or else to a state of wholeness and at-one-ment with others. Not to a philosophical "perfection" in which mistakes are never made and there is no messy learning curve - it seems to me more like coming full-circle to reconcile with others. When God says to Abraham to "Be ye perfect", it reads to me that he's saying "be ye perfect [in relation to your faithfulness towards others, like God is to humanity]." Alma says God is a perfect, just god in relation to how well He fulfills the atonement, not that He has never made a mistake while in mortal life. It's a human tendency to idolize and idealize heroes, but we do no favors to anyone if we put them on a stainless pedestal and deny them their humanity just so they'll look more regal in a pietà.
Duncan Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 The only time the word "infallible" is used in scripture is in Acts 1:3, in which the author of the text considers the "proofs" of the 40-day ministry by which Christ showed Himself alive after His passion to be "infallible." I don't even know what it would mean for a person -- including God -- to be "infallible"; every Intelligence learns line upon line precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, from one small degree to another. It's evolution; it's eternal progression. Inasmuch as we err, it will be made manifest if we search out words of wisdom and are willing to be instructed, by gathering all the good and true from the best books and accepting that truth from wherever it may come from. If we declare anyone infallible, we've shut off continuing revelation.If we're searching for idealized Platonic perfection, we're never going to find it, because at the slightest crack the entire thing comes crashing down and there goes our faith. The "perfection" spoken of in scripture is not the unchanging flawlessness of Greek philosophy; it's about completing a Work. Perfectus = completed; perficere = accomplish, finish; per = completely, facere = to perform.So "perfect" occurs quite a bit in scripture, but it usually refers to the "completion" of the resurrected body (i.e., a physical form not subject to disintegration) or else to a state of wholeness and at-one-ment with others. Not to a philosophical "perfection" in which mistakes are never made and there is no messy learning curve - it seems to me more like coming full-circle to reconcile with others. When God says to Abraham to "Be ye perfect", it reads to me that he's saying "be ye perfect [in relation to your faithfulness towards others, like God is to humanity]." Alma says God is a perfect, just god in relation to how well He fulfills the atonement, not that He has never made a mistake while in mortal life. It's a human tendency to idolize and idealize heroes, but we do no favors to anyone if we put them on a stainless pedestal and deny them their humanity just so they'll look more regal in a pietà.What do you make of the verse in Psalms that says the word of the Lord is Perfect (I may be paraphrasing here)
mfbukowski Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) The only time the word "infallible" is used in scripture is in Acts 1:3, in which the author of the text considers the "proofs" of the 40-day ministry by which Christ showed Himself alive after His passion to be "infallible." I don't even know what it would mean for a person -- including God -- to be "infallible"; every Intelligence learns line upon line precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, from one small degree to another. It's evolution; it's eternal progression. Inasmuch as we err, it will be made manifest if we search out words of wisdom and are willing to be instructed, by gathering all the good and true from the best books and accepting that truth from wherever it may come from. If we declare anyone infallible, we've shut off continuing revelation.If we're searching for idealized Platonic perfection, we're never going to find it, because at the slightest crack the entire thing comes crashing down and there goes our faith. The "perfection" spoken of in scripture is not the unchanging flawlessness of Greek philosophy; it's about completing a Work. Perfectus = completed; perficere = accomplish, finish; per = completely, facere = to perform.So "perfect" occurs quite a bit in scripture, but it usually refers to the "completion" of the resurrected body (i.e., a physical form not subject to disintegration) or else to a state of wholeness and at-one-ment with others. Not to a philosophical "perfection" in which mistakes are never made and there is no messy learning curve - it seems to me more like coming full-circle to reconcile with others. When God says to Abraham to "Be ye perfect", it reads to me that he's saying "be ye perfect [in relation to your faithfulness towards others, like God is to humanity]." Alma says God is a perfect, just god in relation to how well He fulfills the atonement, not that He has never made a mistake while in mortal life. It's a human tendency to idolize and idealize heroes, but we do no favors to anyone if we put them on a stainless pedestal and deny them their humanity just so they'll look more regal in a pietà.Good stuff. I see it in terms of being "complete" meaning self-actualized. Fill the measure of your creation and have joy therein. It doesn't have much to do with making mistakes imo.http://en.wikipedia....f-actualizationEdit- oh well I will include part of the quote after all I guess Maslow's Characteristics of Self-ActualizersA self-actualizer is a person who is living creatively and fully using his or her potentials. In his studies, Maslow found that self-actualizers share similarities. Whether famous or unknown, educated or not, rich or poor, self-actualizers tend to fit the following profile.[12]Efficient perceptions of reality. Self-actualizers are able to judge situations correctly and honestly. They are very sensitive to the fake and dishonest.Comfortable acceptance of self, others, nature. Self-actualizers accept their own human nature with all its flaws. The shortcomings of others and the contradictions of the human condition are accepted with humor and tolerance.Spontaneity. Maslow's subjects extended their creativity into everyday activities. Actualizers tend to be unusually alive, engaged, and spontaneous.Task centering. Most of Maslow's subjects had a mission to fulfill in life or some task or problem outside of themselves to pursue. Humanitarians such as Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa represent this quality.Autonomy. Self-actualizers are free from reliance on external authorities or other people. They tend to be resourceful and independent.Continued freshness of appreciation. The self-actualizer seems to constantly renew appreciation of life's basic goods. A sunset or a flower will be experienced as intensely time after time as it was at first. There is an "innocence of vision", like that of an artist or child.Fellowship with humanity. Maslow's subjects felt a deep identification with others and the human situation in general.Profound interpersonal relationships. The interpersonal relationships of self-actualizers are marked by deep loving bonds.Comfort with solitude. Despite their satisfying relationships with others, self-actualizing persons value solitude and are comfortable being alone. [13]Non-hostile sense of humor. This refers to the wonderful capacity to laugh at oneself. It also describes the kind of humor a man like Abraham Lincoln had. Lincoln probably never made a joke that hurt anybody. His wry comments were gentle prodding of human shortcomings.Peak experiences. All of Maslow's subjects reported the frequent occurrence of peak experiences (temporary moments of self-actualization). These occasions were marked by feelings of ecstasy, harmony, and deep meaning. Self-actualizers reported feeling at one with the universe, stronger and calmer than ever before, filled with light, beautiful and good, and so forth. Edited June 12, 2012 by mfbukowski 1
DBMormon Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) What I find interesting is that many members, some on this board, seem to give lip service to the idea that our leaders are not infallible, but when presented with example of this, they bristle up and get all defensive. I do find this odd as well.LOG - I will say if Pres Kimball was a member of the 12 at this time then that example doesn't apply to a discussion of the President of the church being infalliable.I also would enjoy a study but likely attribute this to President kimball having a misguided belief and seeing what he wanted to see. It doesn't affect anything other then to say that the Lord's servants make mistakes. Edited June 12, 2012 by reelmormon
Nominee Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) delete ~ Totally misread what the debate was about. ~ sorry Edited June 12, 2012 by Nominee
Nominee Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Sounds to me like two who spoke up for it.Yeah. Yes, exactly. I heard two speak up for prophetic infallibility.
CV75 Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 This is what is infallible: “my word” as explained in D&C 1:38-39, “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. For behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen.” 1
CV75 Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 ...and if we can "speak with the tongue of angels" (2 Nephi 31;13, 14), or "by the Holy Ghost" (2 nephi 32:2) we can recognize "my word" and "my voice" when we hear it.
ERayR Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I do find this odd as well.LOG - I will say if Pres Kimball was a member of the 12 at this time then that example doesn't apply to a discussion of the President of the church being infalliable.I also would enjoy a study but likely attribute this to President kimball having a misguided belief and seeing what he wanted to see. It doesn't affect anything other then to say that the Lord's servants make mistakes.I am not opposed to a prophet being fallible. However, I would like a reference to what President Kimball was supposed to have said. All we have is someones interpretation of what they thought he said, not a direct quote in context. I'm not saying he didn't say it but I would like to know exactly what he said so please post a reference.
Calm Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) One LDS who spoke up in defense of Prophetic infallibility. Did he specify in what context he meant this (as in everything the Prophet did no matter how trivial or mundane or, in as the other class member defined, when he was acting as prophet or something else)? Edited June 12, 2012 by calmoriah
Calm Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 you win he lost.... you win they lose...you win they lose.They only have lost if they refused to accept correction when presented with accurate information by credible sources.
zerinus Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 The Prophet is infallible when he speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost.
DBMormon Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Zerinus - in as much as he is able to take the info conveyed by the spirit and adequately transfer that into mortal ways of understanding it... ex: language, context, ect...Otherwise... absolutely. Would you concede that a prophet or apostle might think he is speaking by the spirit but not be doing so and get something wrong?
Recommended Posts