False Doctrine At Conference

[Bob Crockett]

Do you always call the top leaders of the Church irresponsible?  ouch

I never said nor implied any such thing.  

 

At this point, and after that last post, I'm suggesting that perhaps the facts aren't as you say they are.  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you've just misinterpreted somebody or you've been misled.

 

You say that somebody high-ranked in the Church promised you a footnote to Elder Bednar's talk. And then you used some gambling term -- "Instead, the Church doubled down," implying that the Church breached its promise to you and intentionally decided to publish something false.  

 

I don't see it.  Sorry.   The evidence isn't there.  I'm sure that most rational readers with some empathy to church leaders and what they have to go through with accusations of error would likely agree with me.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

So first presidency statements and lds.org are weapons in the arsenal of the "hate mongers." I don't think a productive conversation is possible with you. Peace.

 

Are you really that uninformed?  Apparently you are unfamiliar with Ed Decker and his cartoons that have been "Banned by the Mormons", among others.

 

But anyway, best of luck to you.

Edited June 1, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Hate mongers? That's a bit extreme? Are you referring to SeekingUnderstanding?

 

 I am talking about the professional antimormons who are so familiar and beloved to us all, not their victims.

 

From personal conversions with them, they are very much aware of what they are doing, and the effect they are having.  When caught in a lie, one of them brushed it off, "I'm just making a joke, just harmless fun."

Edited June 1, 2014 by cdowis

[canard78]

Are you really that uninformed?

 

On the subject of "uninformed" - I'm interested to know what you make of the church's statement that I referenced above (approved by the first presidency and quorum of the 12) that black skin is not a reflection of actions in a premortal life?

In other words, black skin is no more a sign of what decisions or actions someone may have taken in the previous existence than my brown hair or the colour of your eyes.

[cdowis]

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form (emphasis mine)

Of course I accept this and have always done so.  I reject the theory that the gentiles were inferior to the Jews, even when Christ specifically avoided ministering to them while He was on the earth.  I  reject the notion that the rest of Israel were inferior to the Levites when they were given restrictions on the priesthood.

 

It clarifies the church position, rejecting any theories regarding inferiority of any race or colour of skin.

 

I make note that this statement is carefully worded, and I have reconciled it for myself with the previous statements,  But I will let you decide that for yourself -- I have no interested in parsing out the statement in a contentious attempt to satisfy everyone on these issues.

 

Finally, I point out that we are  all under the curse of the Fall of Adam, and that each of us accepted in the pre-existence that we may be under certain disadvantages as a condition of mortality, some more than others.  But those disadvantages would be equalized in eternity.

Edited June 1, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

LeGrande Richard's comment

 

The context of his remark was with a member who expressed great dissatisfaction with his growth in the church, and Richards encouraged him to find somewhere that he could find that happiness and growth.  Clearly he felt that this individual would eventually progress "somewhere else" and then would re-discover the church.

 

It certainly was not an invitation to "leave the church" but to find something or another group of people that would help him grow. Being in the church can be tough for some people, and they just continue to slide downward.

Edited June 1, 2014 by cdowis

[canard78]

LeGrande Richard's comment

The context of his remark was with a member who expressed great dissatisfaction with his growth in the church, and Richards encouraged him to find somewhere that he could find that happiness and growth. Clearly he felt that this individual would eventually progress "somewhere else" and then would re-discover the church.

It certainly was not an invitation to "leave the church" but to find something or another group of people that would help him grow. Being in the church can be tough for some people, and they just continue to slide downward.

Thanks. Was the quoted comment in your previous post an actual verbatim quote or a summary of the message of the story?

I'm just curious whether your quote were his actual words or a broader story you've summarised?

[cdowis]

It was not an exact quote but from my memory.  That's why I wanted to clarify the context of his comment because it  was being misunderstood.

[David T]

DB,

Have you had any correspondence on this topic since the publication of the unaltered Ensign?

[canard78]

Of course I accept this and have always done so.  I reject the theory that the gentiles were inferior to the Jews, even when Christ specifically avoided ministering to them while He was on the earth.  I  reject the notion that the rest of Israel were inferior to the Levites when they were given restrictions on the priesthood.

 

It clarifies the church position, rejecting any theories regarding inferiority of any race or colour of skin.

 

I make note that this statement is carefully worded, and I have reconciled it for myself with the previous statements,  But I will let you decide that for yourself -- I have no interested in parsing out the statement in a contentious attempt to satisfy everyone on these issues.

 

Finally, I point out that we are  all under the curse of the Fall of Adam, and that each of us accepted in the pre-existence that we may be under certain disadvantages as a condition of mortality, some more than others.  But those disadvantages would be equalized in eternity.

 

I'm not talking about inferiority. I'm simply pointing out that black skin is not considered, in any way, a reflection of actions in the pre-mortal life. Skin colour is no a sign of pre-earth behaviour than hair colour, eye colour or any other genetic feature inherited from parents.

 

The church today has a different stance on this issue than the stand taken by the leaders in the 1940s.

[canard78]

It was not an exact quote but from my memory.  That's why I wanted to clarify the context of his comment because it  was being misunderstood.

 

Thanks for clarifying it.

[DBMormon]

DB,

Have you had any correspondence on this topic since the publication of the unaltered Ensign?

yes, I met the top leader briefly two weeks ago as he another GA were in my stake recently.  He acknowledged me, knew who I was, knew the work I was doing, but too many people and too long a line to discuss this issue and it would have been a bad place and timing to ask about it.  He urged me to keep writing him and So I will follow up soon.

Edited June 2, 2014 by DBMormon

[CV75]

yes, I met the top leader briefly two weeks ago as he another GA were in my stake recently.  He acknowledged me, knew who I was, knew the work I was doing, but too many people and too long a line to discuss this issue and it would have been a bad place and timing to ask about it.  He urged me to keep writing him and So I will follow up soon.

Is this the same person you said is "as close to the situation as one could be without being Elder Bednar?" If not, I don't understand what you meant.

 

Is this the same person you referenced as writing you an e-mail with the information about how the issue would be addressed in the Ensign?

 

If this isn't the same person, did that person share how he came by the information "that it would be addressed as a footnote in the ensign."?

[DBMormon]

Is this the same person you said is "as close to the situation as one could be without being Elder Bednar?" If not, I don't understand what you meant.

 

Is this the same person you referenced as writing you an e-mail with the information about how the issue would be addressed in the Ensign?

 

If this isn't the same person, did that person share how he came by the information "that it would be addressed as a footnote in the ensign."?

all the same person.

[cdowis]

I'm not talking about inferiority. I'm simply pointing out that black skin is not considered, in any way, a reflection of actions in the pre-mortal life.

 

 

OK, but the problem is that the enemies of the church and their victims use "curse" as a code word for "inferior", and it is necessary to identify this tactic.  

 

We are *all* cursed in one matter or another, and the curse that we have individually or as a group may have a relationship to pre-mortal life.  That exact relationship has been a matter of speculation, and that is what the church is attempting to clarify.

Edited June 3, 2014 by cdowis

[jkwilliams]

OK, but the problem is that the enemies of the church and their victims use "curse" as a code word for "inferior", and it is necessary to identify this tactic.  

 

We are *all* cursed in one matter or another, and the curse that we have individually or as a group may have a relationship to pre-mortal life.  That exact relationship has been a matter of speculation, and that is what the church is attempting to clarify.

 

I don't think it's a code word at all. It's the opposite of blessed, and blessed is a positive thing, so cursed is obviously a negative thing.

[cdowis]

I don't think it's a code word at all. It's the opposite of blessed, and blessed is a positive thing, so cursed is obviously a negative thing.

 

Technically you are correct, but it appears that you are rather inexperienced (naive) regarding antimormon strategy and tactics.  Have you viewed Decker's cartoon?

 

Once again,  we are ALL cursed (under the curse of the Fall of Adam), but the antis make a big deal about the curse of Cain.  They make cartoons, they publish quotes, they beat their drums on this point.

 

The bottom line is that they are asserting that curse == inferior regardless of logic.

Edited June 3, 2014 by cdowis

[jkwilliams]

Technically you are correct, but it appears that you are rather inexperienced (naive) regarding antimormon strategy and tactics.  Have you viewed Decker's cartoon?

I couldn't care less about anti-Mormons, Ed Decker, or their tactics. Should I?

 

Once again,  we are ALL cursed (under the curse of the Fall of Adam), but the antis make a big deal about the curse of Cain.  They make cartoons, they publish quotes, they beat their drums on this point.

I have no drum to beat. Sure, we're all under the curse of sin, but only some of us have the curse of Cain.

 

The bottom line is that they are asserting that curse == inferior regardless of logic.

For me, what's important is that the idea of the curse of Cain being black skin (and the subsequent restriction on priesthood) is based on a mistaken understanding of lineage, as the genetically diverse population of sub-Saharan Africa does not descend from a single ancestor who lived some 6000 years ago. It's not even an idea contemporary with the Bible, having been extrapolated by European Protestants trying to justify the practice of enslaving black Africans. It's unfortunate that it found its way into LDS doctrine and that it's still being defended by some Mormons today.

I'm happy that the church has officially repudiated these teachings: "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life."

[CV75]

all the same person.

It would be good if you could get a description of what went on between his sending you the e-mail and what the Ensign published, and his role along the way.

 

When you say he was as close as one could get to Elder Bednar, what does that mean?

Edited June 3, 2014 by CV75

[Senator]

It would be good if you could get a description of what went on between his sending you the e-mail and what the Ensign published, and his role along the way.

 

When you say he was as close as one could get to Elder Bednar, what does that mean?

 

 

Either come out and call him a liar, or let it go.

 

You are badgering.

[DBMormon]

When you say he was as close as one could get to Elder Bednar, what does that mean?

 

What to you, do you think I mean by top leader?

Edited June 3, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Either come out and call him a liar, or let it go.

 

You are badgering.

Calling me a liar or claiming I am misinterpreting is fair, but it is also wrong.  Again I have the correspondence in my possession.  I could, though I won't with any antagonist here, prove I am right.  Several people in my ward/stake are aware (including my SP) that I have had correspondence with this person.  It is not something to call me out on, but it is ok, let them have more rope if that is their intention (I do not at this point know CV75's intentions)!

Edited June 3, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Scott Lloyd - Also you continually raise my saying Joseph smith had serious flaws .  Terryl Givens says the same thing in his interview with John Dehlin in his 5 part interview. ( the soundbite is in episode 2 - start at 16 minutes in)

http://mormonstories.org/podcast/MormonStories-290-TerrylGivensPt2.mp3

 

I take the same stance as Terryl - Please take a listen and then you can hound both of us and lump us together in your criticisms!!!

Edited June 3, 2014 by DBMormon

[jkwilliams]

Scott Lloyd - Also you continually raise my saying Joseph smith had serious flaws .  Terryl Givens says the same thing in his interview with John Dehlin in his 5 part interview. ( the soundbite is in episode 2 - start at 16 minutes in)

 

I take the same stance as Terryl - Please take a listen and then you can hound both of us and lump us together in your criticisms!!!

In my experience, it's OK to say in the abstract that Joseph Smith had "serious flaws." When you get specific, then it's fault-finding and evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

[DBMormon]

In my experience, it's OK to say in the abstract that Joseph Smith had "serious flaws." When you get specific, then it's fault-finding and evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

I didn't know that believing Joseph was of the utmost character was essential to a testimony in the restored gospel?  shucks