omni Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 No wonder prophets tend to hold their tongues these days. In fact, Gordon B. Hinckley was being discouraged to appear on larry king, if I understood it correctly. But he went on and his quotes are still being used to mock the church. Yep, lets hold these humans to a higher standard. Yep, I am sure that satan just lets these guys be or that they have supernatural powers to withstand his temptations and influence.Why me, name one organization in which the leader in not held to a higher standard. Now add to that the belief that our prophets are hand picked by God and then you can understand where I'm coming from.
Johnnie Cake Posted June 19, 2013 Author Posted June 19, 2013 (edited) Up Date: I have passed along several of the links provided by the posters here. I shared cinepro's quote from Elder Holland where he expressed his relief in first hearing of the lifting of the ban and I also sent him the link to the dialogue article by Bush....and a few of the others. All were links to pro LDS perspectives....he thanked me and said that he will read them and return and report.thought some here might like to know... Edited June 19, 2013 by Johnnie Cake 3
The Nehor Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 If our personal conduct can influence our ability to receive revelation and feel the Holy Ghost, then the personal conduct of the Prophet should be of great interest to the church members.I am not too worried. If God finds the current prophet unable to fulfill his function He has at his disposal an easy way to get a replacement. 1
The Nehor Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 I think it is important to remember the humility and desire for revelation and blessings many of the prophets showed as well. I like the prayer attributed to Joseph Smith:"Lord, we thank thee for this johnny cake and ask thee to send us something better." 1
why me Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 I'll be honest with you here, I think you're just digging yourself a bigger hole by showing racism in the OT.I don't think so. It just sets a precedent. Why would god have a chosen people in a world full of other people? And certainly the early church at the time of paul was split over taking the gospel to the gentiles. Were those opposed racist?
why me Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 (edited) Why me, name one organization in which the leader in not held to a higher standard. Now add to that the belief that our prophets are hand picked by God and then you can understand where I'm coming from.That is not the point. The point is that no one is perfect and we all make mistakes. But when it comes to the church, what is important is the foundation of the church which is founded with the publication of the book of mormon. And there are a couple of ways which this book came about: joseph smith writing it, Sidney writing it, or what it claims to be.What did the witnesses see when they saw the plates. I do not expect prophets to be perfect and yes, they can be misled. As I can be misled. However it seems that spencer w. kimball was not misled. One gets a better picture of a prophet when one listens to Edward Kimball discuss his father here:[media=] He also mentions the priesthood ban during the interview. Edited June 19, 2013 by why me
ERayR Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Why me, name one organization in which the leader in not held to a higher standard. Now add to that the belief that our prophets are hand picked by God and then you can understand where I'm coming from.But it is not in your authority to be the one who sets those standards for them.
why me Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Not necessarily racist, but xenophobic, yes!So, if I were a member of the early church, I suppose that I should leave the church because of the imperfections of James.
Bikeemikey Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 I think that we are dealing with perfection problems. How can a prophet be prejudice? This question as been more or less asked. Or can god be racist? Well, I provided a link that shows that god has been racist, especially in the old testament. So there is a case to be made that prophets are products of their time as is god.You provided a link that shows people used god as an excuse to justify there racism... Nothing more.
ERayR Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 You provided a link that shows people used god as an excuse to justify there racism... Nothing more.Just because it was used as an excuse does not make it false.
rockpond Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 So, if I were a member of the early church, I suppose that I should leave the church because of the imperfections of James.Again, strawman. Who is suggesting that people should leave the church because of imperfections of the prophets?
ERayR Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Again, strawman. Who is suggesting that people should leave the church because of imperfections of the prophets?But it is used as an excuse by some.
cinepro Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 (edited) These days, the critics are using the internet to distract members from what is important: the truthfulness of the book of mormon and the 11 witnesses. Everything is brought up as a distraction, even grandma's kitchen sink. And yet, they cannot attack the witnesses or the book of mormon and how it came to be. Even the hat trick is faith promoting. So, the rest is fluff used for distraction.Ummm...no“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.”- Joseph SmithBook of Mormon and the 11 Witnesses aren't even top five. Edited June 19, 2013 by cinepro
canard78 Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 If you're asking for someone on this board to defend the Priesthood Ban using the scriptures, I doubt anyone will take you up on it. We're all agreed that it isn't unambiguously scriptural.The point is that there are certain verses of scripture which are easily understood to describe a Priesthood Ban based on skin color and lineage, and these verses were understood that way by some Church leaders and members. These verses do exist, and it's only through our "enlightened" post-OD2 understanding that we can see that they aren't referring to a race-based Priesthood Ban after all.Joseph Smith saw no reason to introduce the ban with all his access to scripture and revelation. I agree that there is both societal norms and scripture that can be bent towards the idea. But it again means that we have 130 years of error based on the philosophies of men and the misinterpretation of scripture. I'm not aware of any opposition to Abel's ordination at the time of Joseph doing so. Belief in and application of the ban seems to have grown and been adopted with time under the growing voice and rhetoric of certain leaders. It was preached and accepted as if revealed doctrine despite no evidence of it ever being so. I would suggest that if it had been never taught by BY et al, it would never have been an issue. The early non Utah-Mormon splinters are evidence of this given they did not have the ban in place. It was a ban of limited and then learnt prejudice not of necessity. I see no justification at all. That there is an understandability for why the error happened does not alter the fact that it was an error.
canard78 Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Just because it was used as an excuse does not make it false.Just because their perception was false does not mean we can excuse it.
omni Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 So, if I were a member of the early church, I suppose that I should leave the church because of the imperfections of James.I find the idea quite disturbing that God has a chosen people and if weren't lucky enough to be born into it you don't get the blessings of the gospel. Of course if I lived a few thousand years ago when the Bible was written I'd probably think different as it was common for cultures to claim superiority or God's favor based solely on their lineage. While there is some of this thinking that goes on today, most of the educated world has moved past the idea of racial and ethnic superiority.
omni Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 But it is not in your authority to be the one who sets those standards for them.That doesn't mean I can't make judgements on the actions of our leaders whether they be church, government, business, etc.
Bikeemikey Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Just because it was used as an excuse does not make it false.I don't disagree with that. Just doesn't make it true either.
The Nehor Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 I find the idea quite disturbing that God has a chosen people and if weren't lucky enough to be born into it you don't get the blessings of the gospel. Of course if I lived a few thousand years ago when the Bible was written I'd probably think different as it was common for cultures to claim superiority or God's favor based solely on their lineage. While there is some of this thinking that goes on today, most of the educated world has moved past the idea of racial and ethnic superiority.But this is neither. It is about PreMortal superiority.
omni Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 But this is neither. It is about PreMortal superiority. Sweet! Not only do I have mortal superiority, but being BIC from pioneer stock means I also had premortal superiority:)
canard78 Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 No they don't. And the antimormons or the critics do not allow them to transcend imperfections. Rather, members are told to doubt their church because of them. Members struggle after discovering the internet's information and yet, they allow such information to destroy their testimony. And the critics are very skillful in doing this. And yet, the 11 witnesses still stand as a testament that something wonderful happened to them with the book of mormon.And that joseph wrote a book with his head in a hat. And that does trump the priesthood ban.I have very little interest in what critics say. I am interested in what happened. The Book of Mormon as an inspired/uninspired book and Brigham as an inspired/uninspired prophet are two unrelated issues. There have been 1000s of people who embrace the first and reject the second. You don't prove the priesthood ban to be God's will by accepting the Book of Mormon to be of divine origins. I accept the Old Testament as scripture but I don't follow the teachings of its modern day direct children.I accept the New Testament as scripture but I consider some of the later leaders that sprang from it to have at times been in error. We even have our leaders teach us that:In 1978, under the direction of President Spencer W. Kimball, the first presidency made the statement that: “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/i-have-a-question?lang=engI accept the Old Testament but am not JewishI accept the New Testament but am not CatholicI even accept that Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius were inspired leaders and writers but do not follow their teachings. Why then, if I embrace the Book of Mormon, must I accept or excuse the errors of misled leaders that came later? One does not depend on the other. 1
The Nehor Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Sweet! Not only do I have mortal superiority, but being BIC from pioneer stock means I also had premortal superiority:)Eother that or you are a colossal screwup that needed the extra help. Either way.....
williamsmith Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Thanks for your assistanceHey Johnnie. I recently came upon this article and found it an interesting perspective.http://www.ldsfaqs.com/history/mormons-did-not-deny-blacks-the-priesthood/While it doesn't get into all the issues per-se that other articles get into that other's have contributed here, it's might be helpful information to your friend. The testimony and experience of someone who's been also bothered by this issue but resolved it can bring perspective.
williamsmith Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) It broke my heart that this young man called the ban. "The Curse of Cain". It was a terrible policy and no matter the reasons for it or why it took so long to change the policy...Im just glad that its no longer practiced.And for "why me". Personally (not that my opinion matters or carries any weight). I believe the healing needed will only come when the church leaders, just as they did with Adam-God, acknowledge it as false doctrine, a mistaken policy and express deep remorse for all the pain to generations of black Africans felt due to the false policy. Isn't that the method taught when seeking forgiveness?There was no "Adam-God" doctrine. What Brigham taught is actually still taught in the Temple, and at plenty of other times at the same exact time he taught the "traditional" views of Adam and God. Thus, what he was teaching is being misunderstood.Also, if you actually read the repudiation, it specifically and primarily refers to "critics" views of the issue, not LDS.I don't believe the policy was false. I believe some of the justifications and views attempting to explain it was false, but not the policy itself.The above article also explains some of my own views on the issue. Edited June 20, 2013 by williamsmith
Recommended Posts