2015 Curriculum

[Senator]

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.

Thank you for responding to my request! However you can drop the "I will be faithful, will you?" sermonizing that you often include. It's not needed.

Now to your response.

I agree with your demonstation that the mere recongnition and engagement with the ban by subsequent leaders, acts as an affimation of the legitimacy of the ban. Of course no one was saying the ban was not legitimate.  I however do not see that such an affirmation speaks to the to divine implimentaion of the ban. It is apparent that many leaders questioned the origin of the ban. They where, however, faithful to retroactively sustain Pres. Young, and therefore respect decisions he had made in behalf of the chuch. I believe that subsequent leaders believed, that Pres. Young believed, in his justifications for the ban.

 

So what you appear to be telling me is that the church leadership has alway upheld the ban as divinely initiated. Yet today we have a statement that is simply agnostic to the origins to the ban, and can even lead one to see how it incourages the notion of cultural racial influences for the ban.

 

It is confusing to say the least.

[Boanerges]

No self-righteousness was intended.  Yes, it does seem to me as though you are being unduly judgmental of your fellow Saints, and it does seem to me that you're employing circular logic in a sense:  on the one hand, you claim the ability to know the hearts of numerous other people, and yet you claim, on the other hand, that they cannot know what they say they know.  And if quoting scripture is a bad thing, I'll always plead guilty.  It's impossible for me to know for sure, but I think you are using an unduly narrow definition of the word "know."  That's what I think.  Your mileage may vary; to each, his or her own.

 Interesting that I just came across this today - perhaps there was a bit of inspiration or revelation involved.   From LDS Living http://www.ldsliving.com/story/76857

 

Terryl Givens credits cultural pressures within the Latter-Day Saint community for this lack of preparedness. “We have become accustomed to equating testimony with certainty and knowledge, and we use the language of certainty--I know the church is true, I know this, I know that--and it may be that in fact the silent majority as members of the congregation may very well feel unqualified or unable to affirm that they know the church to be true,” he said. “We are simply trying to add our voices to those of the brethren like Elder Holland, to the effect that we need to be more accommodating and embracing of those in our midst who feel that they want to express the desire to believe without being able to express the certainty.”

 

While I wholeheartedly believe there is a silent majority as mentioned (I don't actually know there is ), I think the Givens makes the point that even if there isn't a majority there are those who don't know even if they use the word - and we need to recognize and accommodate that.

 

(All smileys are obligatory - somehow a message seems to carry more weight if it includes them.)

Edited October 2, 2014 by Boanerges

[HappyJackWagon]

Does it matter where a prophet speaks if he declares he's speaking as a prophet? BY is the favorite whipping boy of modern mormons for his many outlandish statements (while at the same time quoting him as an authority when it suits them), but how does one in the present determine when a current prophet/apostle is speaking outlandish things? If one publicly says so, they are apostate. Only in the comfort of hindsight can lay members, such as us, disavow a prophets words (but only some of them).

If a prophet declares he's speaking as a prophet, we are supposed to discern it's only opinion? I highly doubt many in 1852-1978 thought this was only opinion. We only think it was opinion because it doesn't jive with current social norms (which didn't come through prophetic revelation but progressive enlightenment).

I agree.

[teddyaware]

Thank you for responding to my request! However you can drop the "I will be faithful, will you?" sermonizing that you often include. It's not needed.

Now to your response.

I agree with your demonstation that the mere recongnition and engagement with the ban by subsequent leaders, acts as an affimation of the legitimacy of the ban. Of course no one was saying the ban was not legitimate.  I however do not see that such an affirmation speaks to the to divine implimentaion of the ban. It is apparent that many leaders questioned the origin of the ban. They where, however, faithful to retroactively sustain Pres. Young, and therefore respect decisions he had made in behalf of the chuch. I believe that subsequent leaders believed, that Pres. Young believed, in his justifications for the ban.

 

So what you appear to be telling me is that the church leadership has alway upheld the ban as divinely initiated. Yet today we have a statement that is simply agnostic to the origins to the ban, and can even lead one to see how it incourages the notion of cultural racial influences for the ban.

 

It is confusing to say the least.

You're welcome.

I'm about to let the cat out of the bag, but here goes: There is no doubt in my mind but that the statement was deliberately and painstakingly crafted so as to appear "agnostic," as you call it. The Saviour forewarned His disciples thusly "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." The statement amply demonstrates the present leaders of the Lord's Church take the Lord's sage counsel to heart. All involved did an excellent job, speaking nothing but diamond truth from start to finish.

Edited October 2, 2014 by teddyaware

[Avatar4321]

It seems a shame that we have the opportunity to discuss countless amazing teachings from president Benson such as "beware of pride" "born of God" and others and we are discussing a priesthood ban that was retroactively removed decades ago. What a waste of an opportunity

[Senator]

You're welcome.

I'm about to let the cat out of the bag, but here goes: There is no doubt in my mind but that the statement was deliberately and painstakingly crafted so as to appear "agnostic," as you call it. The Saviour forewarned His disciples thusly "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." The statement amply demonstrates the present leaders of the Lord's Church take the Lord's sage counsel to heart. All involved did an excellent job, speaking nothing but diamond truth from start to finish.

 

You are of course free to your opinion.

[Senator]

It seems a shame that we have the opportunity to discuss countless amazing teachings from president Benson such as "beware of pride" "born of God" and others and we are discussing a priesthood ban that was retroactively removed decades ago. What a waste of an opportunity

 

Why don't you open up discussion on those teachings?

[volgadon]

Your self righteousness and quoting scripture puts you in no position to call me to repentance. The above reference damns you as much as it does me, for you cannot look upon my heart, either. Because you live in a world of denial does not make what I said untrue - there are many who testify of things they really do not know - NONE of us know. Some of us believe very strongly, but none of us know. I choose to follow the prophet (and his fellow apostles) when it comes to use of the word know - in testimony I use it as seldom as he does.

 

Don't you mean that you believe very strongly that they do not really know?

[juliann]

You're welcome.

I'm about to let the cat out of the bag, but here goes: There is no doubt in my mind but that the statement was deliberately and painstakingly crafted so as to appear "agnostic," as you call it. The Saviour forewarned His disciples thusly "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." The statement amply demonstrates the present leaders of the Lord's Church take the Lord's sage counsel to heart. All involved did an excellent job, speaking nothing but diamond truth from start to finish.

 

With the help of your secret knowledge, we can now reconstruct that verse. "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves and crafty as foxes."

[HappyJackWagon]

It seems a shame that we have the opportunity to discuss countless amazing teachings from president Benson such as "beware of pride" "born of God" and others and we are discussing a priesthood ban that was retroactively removed decades ago. What a waste of an opportunity

It is interesting that the "Beware of Pride" talk was one ETB is best known for when he possibly didn't write it himself. He had asked a family member to write it. It can be argued that by accepting what was written the words gained the authority of his prophetic call but I think it's interesting that he possibly didn't write that talk at all.

[Kenngo1969]

 Interesting that I just came across this today - perhaps there was a bit of inspiration or revelation involved.   From LDS Living http://www.ldsliving.com/story/76857

 

While I wholeheartedly believe there is a silent majority as mentioned (I don't actually know there is ), I think the Givens makes the point that even if there isn't a majority there are those who don't know even if they use the word - and we need to recognize and accommodate that.

 

(All smileys are obligatory - somehow a message seems to carry more weight if it includes them.)

While the accusation that those who use the word "know" in proclamations of faith, technically, are being imprecise in their use of language would not be without merit, I don't think most people who use the word are saying that their knowledge in matters of faith derives from some sort of empirical, reproducible, quantifiable, falsifiable study.  At the risk of overgeneralizing, what they're really saying, I think, is that whatever principle of the gospel they're testifying to works for them.  It has borne good fruit in their lives in the Alma 32 and 1 Corinthians 2:11 sense.

 

P.S.: While you may believe that we have irreconcilable differences, Boanerges, I believe wholeheartedly in Elder Holland's words:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng

Edited October 3, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[cinepro]

It is interesting that the "Beware of Pride" talk was one ETB is best known for when he possibly didn't write it himself. He had asked a family member to write it. It can be argued that by accepting what was written the words gained the authority of his prophetic call but I think it's interesting that he possibly didn't write that talk at all.

 

You're going to need to provide a reference for that...

[Kenngo1969]

And if there's entirely too much knowing going on regarding matters of faith, it should be noted that this malady isn't restricted to Latter-day Saints.  Samuel Medley was a good Protestant.  What's the name of that hymn again?

 

I Think That My Redeemer Lives?  No, that wasn't it.

I Believe That My Redeemer Lives?  No, that isn't it, either.  
I Hope That My Redeemer Lives?  Nope, that's not it, either.

I Have Faith That My Redeemer Lives?  Nope, that's still not it.

Oh, that's right!  I Know That My Redeemer Lives!

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/music/2009/10?lang=eng&session=2&song=12&media=video#watch=video

Edited October 4, 2014 by Kenngo1969