2015 Curriculum

[Alan]

I have to say this curriculum we have been following for a few years now is really making me fed up. It's all the same stuff.

I don't understand why we are doing this.

[Avatar4321]

I have to say this curriculum we have been following for a few years now is really making me fed up. It's all the same stuff.

I don't understand why we are doing this.

sk we actually learn. And I don't see how every year has been the same

[Alan]

Different presidents, same topics.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Why does the ban necessarily have to be racist in origin and nature? You seem to jump to the conclusion that the only possible motivation for the ban was racism. I do not.

 

Questions like this make me sad because it is painfully obvious that there is such an attempt to have it all make sense that people are afraid to accept the simple answers.

 

The Race and Priesthood article denounces racism in all its forms, past and present, while discussing the ban and the theories. Why would they mention these things together if they were not attempting to make a connection? There is no revelation for the ban. There is no revelation for the theories. What other reason could there be for this happening? The racism that is mentioned.

 

This is a HUGE problem for people because it weakens the view of the prophet as an infallible mouthpiece for God, even though no prophet has ever claimed to be infallible. This is a tangible, real, terrible example that is easy for us to understand. We should learn the lesson and correct our view of prophetic utterance and scripture to a more realistic expectations.

[teddyaware]

Questions like this make me sad because it is painfully obvious that there is such an attempt to have it all make sense that people are afraid to accept the simple answers.

 

The Race and Priesthood article denounces racism in all its forms, past and present, while discussing the ban and the theories. Why would they mention these things together if they were not attempting to make a connection? There is no revelation for the ban. There is no revelation for the theories. What other reason could there be for this happening? The racism that is mentioned.

 

This is a HUGE problem for people because it weakens the view of the prophet as an infallible mouthpiece for God, even though no prophet has ever claimed to be infallible. This is a tangible, real, terrible example that is easy for us to understand. We should learn the lesson and correct our view of prophetic utterance and scripture to a more realistic expectations.

 

You, and those who share your point of view, are the ones with the huge problem. Because if you're correct, the leaders of the Church deliberately conspired to defraud the Church and the world by dishonestly asserting that the Lord gave them a revelation to lift the ban, thereby falsely testifying that a revelation from God was given to them, to wit that the "long promised day" for the ban to be lifted had come and that that knowledge which would bring great change was revealed to them by the Lord Himself. This is what the Apostles David B. Haight and Bruce R. McConkie testified concerning the event:

Before offering the prayer that brought the revelation, President Kimball asked each of the Brethren to express his feelings and views on this important issue. For more than two hours, they talked freely and openly. Elder David B. Haight, the newest member of the Twelve, observed:

“As each responded, we witnessed an outpouring of the Spirit which bonded our souls together in perfect unity—a glorious experience. In that bond of unity we felt our total dependence upon heavenly direction if we were to more effectively accomplish the Lord’s charge to carry the message of hope and salvation to all the world.

“President Kimball then suggested that we have our prayer at the altar. Usually he asked one of us to lead in prayer; however, on this day he asked, ‘Would you mind if I be voice at the altar today?’ This was the Lord’s prophet asking us. Such humility! Such meekness! So typical of this special servant of all.

“ . . . The prophet of God pour[ed] out his heart, pleading eloquently for the Lord to make his mind and will known to his servant, Spencer W. Kimball. The prophet pleaded that he would be given the necessary direction which could expand the Church throughout the world by offering the fullness of the everlasting gospel to all men, based solely upon their personal worthiness without reference to race or color.”

In response to a prophet’s humble prayer of faith, united with those of twelve other prophets, seers, and revelators, the Lord poured out His Spirit—and His answer—in a most powerful way. Elder McConkie testified:

“It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord."

“ . . . On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced.”

 

Here's the problem: Those in the Church who are uncomfortable with the worldly wise who stand pointing and mocking at them from the windows of the large and spacious building of Lehi's vision haven't seen anything yet. As time goes by, the adversary will cause those at the windows to mock and scorn with greater and greater ferocity and convincing sophistry, and it's likely many will walk away from the tree of life because they won't be able to withstand the withering heat of the attacks of the worldly wise and the ensuing shame they will feel for having to continue to defend what to them seems to be indefensible. From a worldly and spiritually uninformed point of view, the mockers will seem very convincing; but for those who have the spirit of revelation, they will know the mockers are wrong and that they simply misunderstand the ways of God and can't comprehend the mysteries of His kingdom...

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him (like the priesthood ban) : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (2 Cor 2)

 

Edited to add:

And for those who claim there is no revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants initiating the ban, the following words from E Dale LeBaron and President Spencer W. Kimball are of great significance:

"Because it (the priesthood ban) did not receive specific scriptural status in the Doctrine and Covenants, some question its origin; however, not all revelations are made public. In 1977 President Kimball said,

“We testify to the world that revelation continues and that the vaults and files of the Church contain these revelations which come month to month and day to day.”

Edited September 30, 2014 by teddyaware

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Edited to add:

And for those who claim there is no revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants initiating the ban, the following words from E Dale LeBaron and President Spencer W. Kimball are of great significance:

"Because it (the priesthood ban) did not receive specific scriptural status in the Doctrine and Covenants, some question its origin; however, not all revelations are made public. In 1977 President Kimball said,

“We testify to the world that revelation continues and that the vaults and files of the Church contain these revelations which come month to month and day to day.”

 

I've never seen a revelation for the ban or even heard it referenced. If it exists it would be good to see although not having it puts the church in a stronger position. Without the initiating revelation the church can claim it was the result of the individual's time and culture (racism included). With a revelation the church would have a harder time walking back an official revelation from God that was wrong. As it is now, the prophet was wrong, not God.

 

 You, and those who share your point of view, are the ones with the huge problem. Because if you're correct, the leaders of the Church deliberately conspired to defraud the Church and the world by dishonestly asserting that the Lord gave them a revelation to lift the ban, thereby falsely testifying that a revelation from God was given to them, to wit that the "long promised day" for the ban to be lifted had come and that that knowledge which would bring great change was revealed to them by the Lord Himself.

 

This makes no sense. I did not state that there is no revelation lifting the ban. Clearly there is. It's an official declaration in the D&C. What we don't have is a revelation initiating the ban. Without that revelation we can chalk the error up to a man who happened to be prophet at the time as opposed to an official prophetic error.

 

And this isn't my problem. It is the church's problem. It is what it is. We can either twist ourselves into knots trying to refute the error but it doesn't change the fact that the church has backtracked on what used to be standard teaching in the church regarding the theories of race. They were wrong. This is a very large and visible error but it isn't the only one. It teaches that prophets, and the church are fallible. If we expect something different we will be very disappointed.

[Senator]

Why does the ban necessarily have to be racist in origin and nature? You seem to jump to the conclusion that the only possible motivation for the ban was racism. I do not.

I don't hold that the origin and nature of the ban was necessarily racist. I do however accept that the preponderance of the evidence points to such.

 

 

Was it racist that until a special revelation was received by Peter that the Gospel was only extended to the Jews and not to the Gentiles? Was it racist that during the Mosaic dispensation the Aaronic Priesthood could only be held and exercised by the descendants of Aaron? Was it racist that during the Old Testament period there was a strict prohibition that the Lord's "peculiar people" not marry outside of the Hebrew nation? Or was racism the motivation when the Lamanites, according to the Book of Mormon, were cursed by God with an outward change in physical appearance? I answer all four of these questions with a resounding no. God works in mysterious ways but I do not at all believe that He or His prophetic servants are racist in any way -- despite the fact that some may believe there is no other possible explanation.

 

I find it interesting that the church statement (which was surely vetted and approved by the 1st Pres. and Qoft12) did not include such rationales or justifications.

 

In very fact, it was the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob who condemned his Nephite brethren for reviling the Lamanites because of the differences in their outward physical characterists:

9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers. (Jacob 3:9)

 

I applaud Jacob, and eventually the leadership of the modern church, for condemning the prejudice and bigotry amidst  their ranks.

 

In other words, although the descendants of Laman and Lemuel were cursed by the Lord with a change in physical appearance, they were born innocent of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, in the mysterious economy of God the curse continued through the generations to serve a wise a purpose that for now only the Lord Himself fully understands.

 

Mmmm.........I suggest you familiarize yourself with the latest apologetics concerning this.

 

Again, please demonstrate from the church statement of any affirmation to a divine origin to the ban?

Edited September 30, 2014 by Senator

[teddyaware]

I've never seen a revelation for the ban or even heard it referenced. If it exists it would be good to see although not having it puts the church in a stronger position. Without the initiating revelation the church can claim it was the result of the individual's time and culture (racism included). With a revelation the church would have a harder time walking back an official revelation from God that was wrong. As it is now, the prophet was wrong, not God.

 

This makes no sense. I did not state that there is no revelation lifting the ban. Clearly there is. It's an official declaration in the D&C. What we don't have is a revelation initiating the ban. Without that revelation we can chalk the error up to a man who happened to be prophet at the time as opposed to an official prophetic error.

 

And this isn't my problem. It is the church's problem. It is what it is. We can either twist ourselves into knots trying to refute the error but it doesn't change the fact that the church has backtracked on what used to be standard teaching in the church regarding the theories of race. They were wrong. This is a very large and visible error but it isn't the only one. It teaches that prophets, and the church are fallible. If we expect something different we will be very disappointed.

I stand utterly amazed. In spite of the strongest possible testimonies from those that would know better than the rest of us that a revelation from God was needed in order to end the ban, you continue to insist there should have been no ban in the first place.

I tried my best to be of help but it seems we're played out here. I'm sure we'll dialogue again on some other topic in the future. Till then, all the best to you...

[teddyaware]

I don't hold that the origin and nature of the ban was necessarily racist. I do however accept that the preponderance of the evidence points to such.

 

 

 

I find it interesting that the church statement (which was surely vetted and approved by the 1st Pres. and Qoft12) did not include such rationales or justifications.

 

 

I applaud Jacob, and eventually the leadership of the modern church, for condemning the prejudice and bigotry amidst  their ranks.

 

 

Mmmm.........I suggest you familiarize yourself with the latest apologetics concerning this.

 

Again, please demonstrate from the church statement of any affirmation to a divine origin to the ban?

Perhaps I'll try to oblige your request in the future. But I don't believe I need to because the revelation given to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in 1978 was not repudiated in the statement -- and revelations or announcements of revelations included in the Standard Works trump press releases. Until the revelation to lift the ban is repudiated, declared unnecessary and invalid and removed from the scriptures -- along with the testimonies of those present who declared that it was God Himself who by His own voice lifted the ban -- I see know pressing need to bother with your request.

[Senator]

Perhaps I'll try to oblige your request in the future. But I don't believe I need to because the revelation given to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in 1978 was not repudiated in the statement -- and revelations or announcements of revelations included in the Standard Works trump press releases. Until the revelation to lift the ban is repudiated, declared unnecessary and invalid and removed from the scriptures -- along with the testimonies of those present who declared that it was God Himself who by His own voice lifted the ban -- I see know pressing need to bother with your request.

Punt!

Got it.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Senator

[Boanerges]

I've never seen a revelation for the ban or even heard it referenced. If it exists it would be good to see although not having it puts the church in a stronger position. Without the initiating revelation the church can claim it was the result of the individual's time and culture (racism included). With a revelation the church would have a harder time walking back an official revelation from God that was wrong. As it is now, the prophet was wrong, not God.

 

I haven't ever seen or heard of a revelation on the ban, either. It does not seem to exist. There are some references to the revelation ending of the ban, and it appears to actually have been an impression/feeling like revelation that most of us are familiar with as having received personal revelation.

 

I am with HJW on this one - I see no need for a revelation to end something that didn't start as a revelation and was apparently nothing more than a policy. The church changes policy all the time without any apparent revelation or the need for it. However, since there was a revelation given, I'm fine with it. I'm also fine with the idea that some past prophets were wrong - OT prophets made mistakes, and Joseph was far from perfect himself. They are men - whether or not the church is true doesn't hinge on them being perfect or infallible, any more than God helping me find my car keys (or not) defines my faith.

[HappyJackWagon]

TeddyAware, I am equally dismayed by your insistence that there MUST be a revelation initiating the ban simply because there is a revelation ending the ban. There is no logic in your response.

 

 

I stand utterly amazed. In spite of the strongest possible testimonies from those that would know better than the rest of us that a revelation from God was needed in order to end the ban, you continue to insist there should have been no ban in the first place.

I tried my best to be of help but it seems we're played out here. I'm sure we'll dialogue again on some other topic in the future. Till then, all the best to you...
 

 

Can you not see how something that was not initiated via revelation would be ended via revelation? Even if the ban was not initiated by revelation it still existed within the church. If God wanted that unauthorized practice to end, he could provide a revelation ending the ban. That is the revelation we have. There is no initiation revelation. Please provide a source for one if you have it. I'd love to see it. Otherwise you're making assumptions without foundation.

[teddyaware]

TeddyAware, I am equally dismayed by your insistence that there MUST be a revelation initiating the ban simply because there is a revelation ending the ban. There is no logic in your response.

 

 

Can you not see how something that was not initiated via revelation would be ended via revelation? Even if the ban was not initiated by revelation it still existed within the church. If God wanted that unauthorized practice to end, he could provide a revelation ending the ban. That is the revelation we have. There is no initiation revelation. Please provide a source for one if you have it. I'd love to see it. Otherwise you're making assumptions without foundation.

What? Logic dictates that if God lifts a ban that there must have been a ban to lift in the first place. If you are correct on this, in 1978 the Lord would have revealed to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve that He never issued a revelation to institute the ban in the first and that all that talk about a promised future day when the ban would be lifted was hogwash. Instead, our prophetic leaders testified that the Lord spoke from heaven and lifted the previously placed ban by his own voice. Either that, or our leaders are calculated liars, something that I know not to be true.

Look, we're never going to see eye to eye on this, so it's best that we just give it a rest. I trust our leaders knew by revelation that what they were doing for all those years with regard to the ban was the Lord's will -- you do not. I have more faith in the Lord's duly chosen prophets, seers and revelators to do the right thing by the Lord than you do, and you have less faith and trust in them than do I. You're never going to convince me to have less faith in them and it looks like I'm never going to to be able to convince you to have more faith in them. So let's part as brethren, knowing in the end the Lord surely knows how to run His Kingdom and bring it off triumphant.

Again, all the best to you.

[teddyaware]

Punt!

Got it.

From the statement:

"After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban."

 

I believe President McKay was inspired of the Lord to maintain the ban, you surely don't.

"Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings."

 

So I guess, according to your way of thinking, the promises that the leaders pondered were bogus because there never should have been a ban in the first place. Nevertheless, we are told that this was one of their primary motivations for going to the Lord for guidance. The leaders surely believed there was a real ban -- you don't. To each his own.

"He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,”

 

So I would imagine, according to your view, that the prophets lied on this one because God would have never said by His own voice that He was lifting a ban He never instituted and therefore never promised to lift in the first place.

"This “revelation on the priesthood,” as it is commonly known in the Church, was a landmark revelation and a historic event. Those who were present at the time described it in reverent terms. Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, remembered it this way: “There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. . . . Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. . . . Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.”

 

So I guess Elder Hinckley and the others must have lied, because rather than mea culpas about a mistaken policy, he testified that God Himself lifted the ban. Why didn't God just tell them there never should have been a ban in the first place? Instead, they solemnly testified that the long promised day for the ban to be lifted was initiated by God's own will and voice. 

 

But will this satisfy those who harbor doubts? Well of course not. Perhaps it's just too much fun to give up on the delicious notion and hope that the leaders of the Church should hanging their heads in shame and pleading for forgiveness when, like Job of old, they have been and are innocent.

[mormonnewb]

You, and those who share your point of view, are the ones with the huge problem. Because if you're correct, the leaders of the Church deliberately conspired to defraud the Church and the world by dishonestly asserting that the Lord gave them a revelation to lift the ban, thereby falsely testifying that a revelation from God was given to them, to wit that the "long promised day" for the ban to be lifted had come and that that knowledge which would bring great change was revealed to them by the Lord Himself. This is what the Apostles David B. Haight and Bruce R. McConkie testified concerning the event:

Before offering the prayer that brought the revelation, President Kimball asked each of the Brethren to express his feelings and views on this important issue. For more than two hours, they talked freely and openly. Elder David B. Haight, the newest member of the Twelve, observed:

“As each responded, we witnessed an outpouring of the Spirit which bonded our souls together in perfect unity—a glorious experience. In that bond of unity we felt our total dependence upon heavenly direction if we were to more effectively accomplish the Lord’s charge to carry the message of hope and salvation to all the world.

“President Kimball then suggested that we have our prayer at the altar. Usually he asked one of us to lead in prayer; however, on this day he asked, ‘Would you mind if I be voice at the altar today?’ This was the Lord’s prophet asking us. Such humility! Such meekness! So typical of this special servant of all.

“ . . . The prophet of God pour[ed] out his heart, pleading eloquently for the Lord to make his mind and will known to his servant, Spencer W. Kimball. The prophet pleaded that he would be given the necessary direction which could expand the Church throughout the world by offering the fullness of the everlasting gospel to all men, based solely upon their personal worthiness without reference to race or color.”

In response to a prophet’s humble prayer of faith, united with those of twelve other prophets, seers, and revelators, the Lord poured out His Spirit—and His answer—in a most powerful way. Elder McConkie testified:

“It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord."

“ . . . On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced.”

Here's the problem: Those in the Church who are uncomfortable with the worldly wise who stand pointing and mocking at them from the windows of the large and spacious building of Lehi's vision haven't seen anything yet. As time goes by, the adversary will cause those at the windows to mock and scorn with greater and greater ferocity and convincing sophistry, and it's likely many will walk away from the tree of life because they won't be able to withstand the withering heat of the attacks of the worldly wise and the ensuing shame they will feel for having to continue to defend what to them seems to be indefensible. From a worldly and spiritually uninformed point of view, the mockers will seem very convincing; but for those who have the spirit of revelation, they will know the mockers are wrong and that they simply misunderstand the ways of God and can't comprehend the mysteries of His kingdom...

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him (like the priesthood ban) : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (2 Cor 2)

Edited to add:

And for those who claim there is no revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants initiating the ban, the following words from E Dale LeBaron and President Spencer W. Kimball are of great significance:

"Because it (the priesthood ban) did not receive specific scriptural status in the Doctrine and Covenants, some question its origin; however, not all revelations are made public. In 1977 President Kimball said,

“We testify to the world that revelation continues and that the vaults and files of the Church contain these revelations which come month to month and day to day.”

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Is this the "revelatory" process for OD2?

If I read you correctly, they got together to discuss the issue. Then they went to the altar to pray; something that they seem to do often (thus, Kimball asking if he could pray that time).

What's so special about the answer they received on this day that makes it an according to Hoyle "revelation"? Don't they always seek the Lord's will? Didn't they follow the same process with regards to lowering the missionary age, building the mall, etc.?

Or was this time somehow unique because they actually received an answer to their prayer? In that case, are they usually just "winging it"?

I guess, in my naïveté, I expected one of the two official declarations to have derived from some special revelatory experience. For instance, I expected that, on the magical day, each apostle would have awoken and immediately dialed another apostle and said, "Hey, guess what I dreamed last night? You too?"

And if I were in charge of PR, that is certainly the way we would have told the story. It's a really good thing that we Mormons aren't so demanding of our prophets.

Be that as it may, how do they differentiate "revelation" from "inspired business leadership"? Since this is the process that they seem to use for most major decisions, what makes one answer to prayer "revelation"?

[zionssuburb@gmail.com]

The Greg Prince bio of David O. McKay gives a great deal of detail around this process/idea.  There were many who insisted as a policy that it could be changed by policy.  The quote given from the topics article is only the tip of the iceberg of what was going on.  

 

Anyone attempting to make sense of this part of our history is negligent unless that biography has been read.  Russell Steven's recent work is also required reading on when and how the ban began, it seems to be related to a very specific event in time.

[ksfisher]

The Greg Prince bio of David O. McKay gives a great deal of detail around this process/idea.  There were many who insisted as a policy that it could be changed by policy.  The quote given from the topics article is only the tip of the iceberg of what was going on.  

 

Anyone attempting to make sense of this part of our history is negligent unless that biography has been read.  Russell Steven's recent work is also required reading on when and how the ban began, it seems to be related to a very specific event in time.

 

Do you have a link to Russell Steven's work? 

[Jeanne]

i love his politics, especially from the 60's, and especially his ideas on race. but then when i quote them in sacrament meeting, i get called into a disciplinary counsel. Whats up with that?

I get to smile at this right?  IMO, Pres. Benson was very racist..and some of his agreements with George Wallace or vice versa was rather scary... looking back, I cannot believe that we were still so far behind as a people and a church even in the late sixties.  Just doesn't seem possible now since we have come such a long ways.  We may no need to know, but should know at what point his counselors/apostles were speaking for him.

[mormonnewb]

I get to smile at this right?  IMO, Pres. Benson was very racist..and some of his agreements with George Wallace or vice versa was rather scary... looking back, I cannot believe that we were still so far behind as a people and a church even in the late sixties.  Just doesn't seem possible now since we have come such a long ways.  We may no need to know, but should know at what point his counselors/apostles were speaking for him.

 

I haven't looked at the manual yet, but I am wiling to wager my first born (not happy with his grades these days anyway) that there will be NONE of his Bircher-esque teachings in the manual.  Should there be?

 

On the one hand, I understand that we don't want to dredge up bad things for the sake of just doing so.  And I'd certainly hate for someone to publish a collection of the worst things I've ever written on this board.

 

On the other hand, I see us falling right back into the faith-promoting/"you lied to me" conundrum.  What happens to the well-meaning EQ/HP/RS instructor who goes to the Internet to get some more "context" for his/her next lesson and runs into one of his Benson's diatribes against, say, Dr. King (or fluoride ... sorry, couldn't help myself).  Seriously, I can see someone feeling mighty disillusioned when they learned that we were only presented with SOME of the teachings of the prophet.

 

Perhaps, this is unavoidable in some sense, but I just listened to an iTunes course on the Reformation in which the professor was very candid about Luther's anti-semiticism.  He read some of the worst quotes.  He didn't try to defend them, but he did attempt to add some context so we could understood how Luther came to such wrong-headed conclusions.  I don't imagine any of the Protestant students walked out of that class thinking, "Luther was a flawed man.  I'm going back to Catholicism."  I assume they simply accepted Luther for what he was -- appreciating his courage and doctrinal innovations, yet deploring his intolerance towards Jews.

 

Why can't we Mormons do the same with our beloved leaders?

[Calm]

Russell Stevenson:

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/shouldering-the-cross

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/08/18/coming-to-grips-with-brigham-young-and-race-2/

 

http://gregkofford.com/collections/forthcoming/products/history-of-blackmormons

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/tag/russell-stevenson/

 

He also blogs here:

 

http://rationalfaiths.com/author/russell/

Edited September 30, 2014 by calmoriah

[Guest]

Actually, FOR ONCE, I'm going to agree with teddyaware. The Church is being intentionally vague and obtuse so as to allow members to read the statement in any way they wish to read it.

I find it inconceivable that with 15 million members, we couldn't find ONE person capable of writing a clear statement that, say, the ban on the priesthood was ordained of God ... or not. So instead, we have a statement that "disavows" the REASONS for the ban. Has the ban itself been disavowed? It depends on whom you ask.

I am one of those 15,000,000 and it was a mistake, one that we are paying for with such a small percentage of diversity. Now having said that, the Church that I grew up in is still segregated, even though the parent organization has apologized for their part in discrimination here in the U.S.

When it comes to this issue, we need to understand that things will never truly change, until we as a people make or have, a change within our own hearts. But for now Martin Luther King Jr, is still "sadly" correct...

"11:00 of Sunday is the most segregated hour of the wee"

Large Church organizations usually issue apologies to make themselves feel better, rather than make changes that help open wounds to begin to heal. Our Church has made those changes, now we all need the "Balm of Gilead" so we can help spread the healing.

[teddyaware]

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Is this the "revelatory" process for OD2?

If I read you correctly, they got together to discuss the issue. Then they went to the altar to pray; something that they seem to do often (thus, Kimball asking if he could pray that time).

What's so special about the answer they received on this day that makes it an according to Hoyle "revelation"? Don't they always seek the Lord's will? Didn't they follow the same process with regards to lowering the missionary age, building the mall, etc.?

Or was this time somehow unique because they actually received an answer to their prayer? In that case, are they usually just "winging it"?

I guess, in my naïveté, I expected one of the two official declarations to have derived from some special revelatory experience. For instance, I expected that, on the magical day, each apostle would have awoken and immediately dialed another apostle and said, "Hey, guess what I dreamed last night? You too?"

And if I were in charge of PR, that is certainly the way we would have told the story. It's a really good thing that we Mormons aren't so demanding of our prophets.

Be that as it may, how do they differentiate "revelation" from "inspired business leadership"? Since this is the process that they seem to use for most major decisions, what makes one answer to prayer "revelation"?

I was unable to post a link to a BYU Studies article that will answer your questions for me. Just do a search under the following criteria -- 23. Official Declaration 2: Revelation on the Priesthood Dale LeBaron -- and it will likely be the first article that will appear. I will have nothing more to add to what the article has to say so it will have to suffice.

Edited September 30, 2014 by teddyaware

[katherine the great]

Why does the ban necessarily have to be racist in origin and nature? You seem to jump to the conclusion that the only possible motivation for the ban was racism. I do not.

 

Are you serious?  YES it was racist!  And all of those arguments defy logic.  Can you really not see the difference in saying that "Only this group of people can have this responsibility" and "EVERYONE can have this responsibility except for this group?"  And the only difference between the groups is race.  Please explain how that is not racist.

[JLHPROF]

Are you serious?  YES it was racist!  And all of those arguments defy logic.  Can you really not see the difference in saying that "Only this group of people can have this responsibility" and "EVERYONE can have this responsibility except for this group?"  And the only difference between the groups is race.  Please explain how that is not racist.

 

Depends on the definition of racist.  There is ample evidence in scripture of God favoring one race over another at various times.

Some might argue that it was only ever cultures and not races, but I'm not so sure the scriptures uphold that.  Even to the point that Israel is called a "chosen" race in scripture, logically meaning that there are races that weren't chosen by God.  There are also many, many other scriptures along these lines.

 

So if the "ban" was placed because the early leaders were racists then sure it's racist.  If the ban was placed because God told the early leaders to place it, is it still racist?  Possibly - depends on God's reasoning.

[mormonnewb]

I was unable to post a link to a BYU Studies article that will answer your questions for me. Just do a search under the following criteria -- 23. Official Declaration 2: Revelation on the Priesthood Dale LeBaron -- and it will likely be the first article that will appear. I will have nothing more to add to what the article has to say so it will have to suffice.

 

I read the article and it was pretty much as you explained earlier.  Elder McConkie hit the nail on the head when he explained what did not happen:

 

“The Lord could have sent messengers from the other side to deliver it, but he did not. He gave the revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost. . . . And maybe some . . . would like to believe that the Lord himself was there, or that the Prophet Joseph Smith came to deliver the revelation. . . . Well, these things did not happen. The stories that go around to the contrary are not factual or realistic or true.”

 

The only thing this doesn't answer is how does these meetings usually work?  Don't they always gather around to discuss the issue logically and then go to the altar to get confirmation?  So what was so "revelatory" here?  Do they not usually hear from the Lord?

 

Also, and this is just my limited understanding, but I don't consider it particularly "revelatory" when I use logic and reason to come to a conclusion and then get confirmation from the Holy Spirit.  It is helpful but not "revelatory."  For example, if I decide to move to Cleveland (don't ask me why) and I get confirmation from the Holy Spirit, great!  But I don't consider it some great revelatory experience.  On the other hand, if I ask about going to Cleveland, and the Lord instead directs me to say, Nome, Alaska.  THAT is revelation -- the Lord REVEALING an opportunity that I wasn't otherwise aware of.  Just my limited understanding, I guess.