Race And The Preisthood New Topic Addition And Bom Verses

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe in issuing CFR's, but if I did, I would challenge at what point the idea that we love one another equally came to the forefront.  It clearly was not at the forefront of Judaism at the time of Christ and there have been plenty of times during the history of Christianity during which the concept got lost somewhere out in the bushes.  So to say that "love one another" has been consistent in Christianity is basically nonsense.  Both sides of the Civil War thought that Christ was on their side.

 

I'm more interested in if I'm on the Lords' side and not so much if he is on mine.

[thesometimesaint]

So God does not speak in parables?  Beowulf could not possibly be viewed as scripture?  What of the parables in the NT?  Are you sure they are "false"?

 

Please don't take that too literally. Did God literally take a rib out of Adam to make Eve? I don't believe so.  So Yes the Lord at times uses parables to teach important ideas. That is why I would hate to see the Scriptures relegated to the realm of Beowulf. A mythical/fantasy story from a long time ago, with no applicability today. 

[BCSpace]

Please don't take that too literally. Did God literally take a rib out of Adam to make Eve? I don't believe so.  So Yes the Lord at times uses parables to teach important ideas. That is why I would hate to see the Scriptures relegated to the realm of Beowulf. A mythical/fantasy story from a long time ago, with no applicability today.

 

Yeah, with the rib, there is actual doctrine from SWK that the rib story is 'surely figurative'.  But I don't think we should be throwing these BoM verses under the proverbial bus until we have further light and knowledge.  They're too specific and too doctrinally linked to skin color to be thinking figurative on those imho.  Hence, I think I'll stick with the contextual argument that in the new topical addition "past" is referring only to the recent past, the case of the modern priesthood ban.

[mfbukowski]

Seems like I've had it for a number of years.  It's been an integral part of the explanation of doctrine since probably before you ever put your hand to the apologetic wheel.

Oh no, I realize that.  Your re-contextualization of the Garden of Eden story works very well I think.  It's just that I don't recall you mentioning the issue that way before.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, with the rib, there is actual doctrine from SWK that the rib story is 'surely figurative'.  But I don't think we should be throwing these BoM verses under the proverbial bus until we have further light and knowledge.  They're too specific and too doctrinally linked to skin color to be thinking figurative on those imho.  Hence, I think I'll stick with the contextual argument that in the new topical addition "past" is referring only to the recent past, the case of the modern priesthood ban.

 

Yet from the BoM we have incidences where it was impossible to tell Nephite from Lamanite, or any other "ite". To me it reads more like a religiopolitical distinction without a racial difference.

[mfbukowski]

Please don't take that too literally. Did God literally take a rib out of Adam to make Eve? I don't believe so.  So Yes the Lord at times uses parables to teach important ideas. That is why I would hate to see the Scriptures relegated to the realm of Beowulf. A mythical/fantasy story from a long time ago, with no applicability today. 

I probably should have said "a story LIKE Beowulf".  I am sure there are some points there applicable for today, but I certainly agree there are much better examples.

 

For example I could imagine some future race giving scriptural importance to some of CS Lewis' stories.

 

Arguably for example, I think one could compare Screwtape Letters with the Book of Job.

Edited December 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

I probably should have said "a story LIKE Beowulf".  I am sure there are some points there applicable for today, but I certainly agree there are much better examples.

 

For example I could imagine some future race giving scriptural importance to some of CS Lewis' stories.

 

Arguably for example, I think one could compare Screwtape Letters with the Book of Job.

 

They're not Scripture?

[David T]

They're not Scripture?

 

Well, A Christmas Carol by Di c kens is now apparently Doctrinal, and presented on the front page of LDS.org for edification, so...

https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

http://www.mormonchannel.org/a-christmas-carol?cid=HPTH121213223

 

Edited December 12, 2013 by David T

[thesometimesaint]

Well, A Christmas Carol by Di c kens is now apparently Doctrinal, and presented on the front page of LDS.org for edification, so...

https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

http://www.mormonchannel.org/a-christmas-carol?cid=HPTH121213223

 

 

Bah Humbug.

[mfbukowski]

Well, A Christmas Carol by Di c kens is now apparently Doctrinal, and presented on the front page of LDS.org for edification, so...

https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

http://www.mormonchannel.org/a-christmas-carol?cid=HPTH121213223

 

This is such a perfect example of this silliness about "anything the church publishes" being doctrine!!

[jkwilliams]

This is such a perfect example of this silliness about "anything the church publishes" being doctrine!!

 

That's certainly not the church's position. Consistent with doctrine, yes. Doctrine, not so much.

[BCSpace]

Well, A Christmas Carol by Di c kens is now apparently Doctrinal, and presented on the front page of LDS.org for edification, so...

https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

http://www.mormoncha...d=HPTH121213223

 

This is such a perfect example of this silliness about "anything the church publishes" being doctrine!!

 

No, it's a perfect example of context and you being Pharisaical in your application.  The doctrine in this case is that it's "one of President Monson's favorite Christmas stories".

Edited December 13, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Feel free to read my post without "equally". We are still left trying to explain why God and his prophets were not communicating on such an important issue over so long a period of time involving a variety of different prophets.

 

I have to wonder if a cultural environment can be blamed for enforcing misconceptions about equality and faulty communications between God and His prophets, can it also be blamed for rejecting something like polygamy?

 

I think it's likely that the cultural influences coupled with a reading of BoM and PofGP verses were the catalyst for the ban.  I don't see why that would make the ban uninspired though.  We certainly haven't rejected plural marriage, just the current practice of it.

[mfbukowski]

That's certainly not the church's position. Consistent with doctrine, yes. Doctrine, not so much.

Here we have a whole thread discussing what constitutes doctrine- again and again the question is raised and debated, but of course John has the answer but doesn't tell us or define a position.   As usual.

[mfbukowski]

No, it's a perfect example of context and you being Pharisaical in your application.

That has to be a first.

 

Me.  "Pharisaical"

 

 

[Stone holm]

That has to be a first.

 

Me.  "Pharisaical"

 

 

When reason fails, name calling comes in handy and that is especially handy for BCSpace

[BCSpace]

When reason fails, name calling comes in handy and that is especially handy for BCSpace

 

In no place did I call anyone names. I merely described someone's application of a principle.  The Pharisees looked into every nitpicky aspect of life and here is mfbukowski doing something similar to try and find the barest of wedge examples to overturn the Church's definition of doctrine.  It didn't work as he was unable to address application I gave.

Edited December 17, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

better practice is just admit that they were from the cultural racism of the time and move on

 

At best (from your perspective imho), what may have happened is found in the definition of the word 'disavow'.  The Church has obviously not repudiated the ban so we're left with a mere distancing itself or a denial of responsibility. But I'm betting that at no time will the Church say or imply that BY was uninspired regarding the ban.

[Stone holm]

At best (from your perspective imho), what may have happened is found in the definition of the word 'disavow'.  The Church has obviously not repudiated the ban so we're left with a mere distancing itself or a denial of responsibility. But I'm betting that at no time will the Church say or imply that BY was uninspired regarding the ban.

I don't think you will see me saying that The Lord was not somehow involved with the ban, I do believe that the ban was put in place and stayed in place because the racism of the White members was so strong and pervasive that they would not have accepted blacks as brothers or treated them well.

[BCSpace]

I do believe that the ban was put in place and stayed in place because the racism of the White members was so strong and pervasive that they would not have accepted blacks as brothers or treated them well.

 

Well, that seems to be one explanation not disavowed.  However, BY implied his inspiration came from long years of reading of the scriptures, etc.

[Stone holm]

Well, that seems to be one explanation not disavowed.  However, BY implied his inspiration came from long years of reading of the scriptures, etc.

I am always reluctant to throw BY under the bus, as is the current trend. However, despite whatever BY may have felt with regards to his explanation, the Church has disavowed his explanation. If long years of reading the Scriptures always led to correct explanations, I rather doubt that Christianity as a whole would be so diverse as it is.

[Tacenda]

Well, that seems to be one explanation not disavowed.  However, BY implied his inspiration came from long years of reading of the scriptures, etc.

What scripture would that be?  Do you mean the BoM, Book of Abraham, or the Bible? Which one inspired BY?  Or all?  Or 2 out of 3, which would be my guess.  

Edited December 17, 2013 by Tacenda

[DBMormon]

Why was the thread on repercussions closed?

[Stone holm]

Why was the thread on repercussions closed?

 

Because you aren't as sweet and cuddly as BCSpace .

[mfbukowski]

In no place did I call anyone names. I merely described someone's application of a principle.  The Pharisees looked into every nitpicky aspect of life and here is mfbukowski doing something similar to try and find the barest of wedge examples to overturn the Church's definition of doctrine.  It didn't work as he was unable to address application I gave.

I get it now, thanks.

 

We have long threads about the ambiguity of doctrine, and no one but you seems to have a clear definition and know perfectly what is and is not doctrine, or what happens when "doctrines" conflict.

 

I am glad you are so comfortable with your definition, but just know that many others are not.