The Clock Is Running On This False Prophecy

[rockpond]

I think that has been the case since the founding of the church. So if you use that logic, were church leaders just being mean to not give the priesthood to the "negros" sooner than over a hundred years later??

Not mean. Just fallible. Swayed by the prejudice of the natural man.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not mean. Just fallible. Swayed by the prejudice of the natural man.

Or determined to follow God's timetable and not move without clear instruction from Him. Spending many hours in the upper rooms of the temple supplicating God for revelation on the matter does not strike me as the behavior of one succumbing to the natural man in being swayed by prejudice.

But this is not a thread about the priesthood restriction.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rodheadlee]

Seriously?  Everyone in China has had the opportunity to receive the priesthood?  All the children of Adam that have yet to be born have had the opportunity to receive the priesthood?  Truth is, just a fraction of the earth's population has had the opportunity to hold the priesthood.  There are over 7 billion people on the earth now and what 15 million members?  

 

It was the revelation/prophesy of Brigham Young that the whole ban on negros holding the priesthood is based.  How can you not think of it or know anything about what he actually said? You don't have to look up talks in the 1900's.  However those talks will confirm exactly what I am saying. Just read what Brigham Young actually said.  

 

When the church started getting a lot of pressure about this issue, the conversation went from what Brigham Young actually said to "someday they will receive the priesthood.  If they had actually stayed with what Brigham Young prophesied, there is no way the priesthood ban would have been lifted until the Millenium.  Why do you think Bruce R. McConkie was so adament that the negro was not going to receive the priesthood any time soon. 

 

Do a little research before you make claims that they were always promised the priesthood eventually.  Yeah they were promised the priesthood AFTER all the other sons of Adam had been given the opportunity.  Hasn't happened yet has it.

 Can you show me one statement that says that someday SSM will be sanctified by God? Which was my whole point.

[rodheadlee]

"We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore.

 

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

 

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

 

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine."

 

 Faithfully yours,

[signed]

George Albert Smith

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

David O. McKay

 

Maybe God doesn't tell the Prophets everything, or maybe they interpret things differently at times. I don't think that the current First Presidency who agree with the above statements made by the First Presidency a few decades ago. Maybe a few decades from now things will be interpreted differently about SSM.

 

Also, I was thinking about Leviticus not the teaching of Paul.

Can you show me one statement that perhaps someday SSM will be sanctified by God, from any prophet of God in our Church?

[KevinG]

Oh yay!  Another thread turned into a gay marriage discussion.  I just can't get enough of those.

 

The church accepting or rejecting gay marriage at some point in the future has no bearing on my obedience to, and faith in, Jesus Christ and His Gospel plan.

 

The significant difference between Dehlin and those who are a part of the Saints (sexuality not a factor) is that those who remain Saints don't expect the church to change for them.

[california boy]

 Can you show me one statement that says that someday SSM will be sanctified by God? Which was my whole point.

 

Nope.  Nor have I ever claimed that SSM would someday be santified by God.  I only point out that there has never been a revelation on this subject and that it is possible that at some point, they may be one given to clarify this issue.

[california boy]

And here is my prediction for the vaults of history.  This summer the Supreme Court will rule 7 to 2 that states can no longer discriminate against gay couples and gay marriage will be legal throughout the United States.  Thomas and Scalia will be the dissenting justices.  History will record that the church was the "George Wallace" of this issue and will forever be linked to trying to prevent gay couples from equal protection under the Constitution.

 

Part two of my perdition is that IF the church acts on what Elder Oaks outlined in his right to discriminate because of religious beliefs, speech, then it will only further entrench the church as an institution that is against equal protection for gays.  Several states will pass such laws within the next couple of years.  Maybe even many.  Using religious beliefs  as an excuse, discrimination will spread to other groups.  The anti discrimination laws will hang by a thread.  But in the end, the Supreme Court will once again rule that gays and other minorities are entitled to equal protection under the laws of the Constitution and will declare those religious discrimination laws null and void.

 

While the church has every right to push this agenda, let's all hope that it chooses not to.  It would only reenforce its anti gay and anti black reputation.  The church can't say it is for equal protection for gays and other minorities in housing and employment and then push an agenda that would allow landlords and employees with the tools to discriminate.  

 

So put my predictions in the vault along with the other ones. 

[CV75]

And here is my prediction for the vaults of history.  This summer the Supreme Court will rule 7 to 2 that states can no longer discriminate against gay couples and gay marriage will be legal throughout the United States.  Thomas and Scalia will be the dissenting justices.  History will record that the church was the "George Wallace" of this issue and will forever be linked to trying to prevent gay couples from equal protection under the Constitution.

 

Part two of my perdition is that IF the church acts on what Elder Oaks outlined in his right to discriminate because of religious beliefs, speech, then it will only further entrench the church as an institution that is against equal protection for gays.  Several states will pass such laws within the next couple of years.  Maybe even many.  Using religious beliefs  as an excuse, discrimination will spread to other groups.  The anti discrimination laws will hang by a thread.  But in the end, the Supreme Court will once again rule that gays and other minorities are entitled to equal protection under the laws of the Constitution and will declare those religious discrimination laws null and void.

 

While the church has every right to push this agenda, let's all hope that it chooses not to.  It would only reenforce its anti gay and anti black reputation.  The church can't say it is for equal protection for gays and other minorities in housing and employment and then push an agenda that would allow landlords and employees with the tools to discriminate.  

 

So put my predictions in the vault along with the other ones. 

Don't be so fatalistic!

[rockpond]

What I recall saying is that global or numerical dominance is not necessary to validate the truth claims of the Church. CFR that I've said growth and retention are not necessary in the Church.

So are you saying that growth and retention ARE a necessary part of the Church? If so, I'll retract my statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

So are you saying that growth and retention ARE a necessary part of the Church? If so, I'll retract my statement.

I've made my position clear: Growth and retention are vital, but not at the cost of caving in on divinely given laws, principles and direction. I believe we can have the one without doing the other.

How about you answer the CFR so we can all see what it is you're misconstruing?

Or just go and enjoy what's left of the holiday weekend with your family as you said you would do the other day when you told me I would have the last word?

Edited February 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Double posted

Edited February 16, 2015 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Citing his and others' assertions that the Church will in the future renounce provisions of the law of chastity is not mischaracterizing him or them. And contradicting such prognostications -- even doing it somewhat facetiously -- does not violate any moral or ethical code I subscribe to. Intimating that it does strikes me as rather weird -- except that it seems to fit an all-too-common pattern of attempted emotional blackmail that has been identified here.

Calling it a prophecy intimates that he is setting himself up as a prophet, which he hasn't done. Making up names for those who share in his views comes across as belittling... or implying that they are somehow followers/disciples of Dehlin rather than Christ.

And I still reject your (and Hamba's) bizarre conclusion that I have emotionally blackmailed you. You haven't been silenced in the least and I have nothing to blackmail you with.

[rockpond]

I've made my position clear.

How about you answer the CFR so we can all see what it is you're misconstruing?

Or just go and enjoy what's left of the holiday weekend with your family as you said you would do the other day when you told me I would have the last word?

I have had an enjoyable weekend, thank you. But the "last word" did not consider getting wrongfully accused of blackmail.

I retract my statement if you are saying that growth and retention are not important to the Church. But since you seem unwilling to state that it seems that you are validating what I said.

[Scott Lloyd]

Nope.  Nor have I ever claimed that SSM would someday be santified by God.  I only point out that there has never been a revelation on this subject and that it is possible that at some point, they may be one given to clarify this issue.

How do you know there has not been revelation given?

Edited February 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Until we get the chance to ask Brigham Young what he meant by the statement, my supposition is just as plausible as yours.

It's obvious from OD2 that a later prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, would not have agreed with your interpretation.

So you are suggesting that what BY meant is that blacks would not be permitted to hold the priesthood until a revelation was received that they *could* hold the priesthood. You're suggesting that the remaining "Sons of Adam" that the Blacks had to wait upon was themselves. Fascinating.

[rockpond]

Or determined to follow God's timetable and not move without clear instruction from Him. Spending many hours in the upper rooms of the temple supplicating God for revelation on the matter does not strike me as the behavior of one succumbing to the natural man in being swayed by prejudice.

But this is not a thread about the priesthood restriction.

Yes, I firmly believe that toward the end of the ban, the good men who lead our church were honesty seeking the Lord's will on the matter.

That doesn't change the prejudice that was present earlier.

[Hamba Tuhan]

And I still reject your (and Hamba's) bizarre conclusion that I have emotionally blackmailed you. You haven't been silenced in the least and I have nothing to blackmail you with.

 

And yet you did tell Scott that the things he says on this topic have been pushing your closer and closer to leaving the Church, knowing how much Scott values Church membership ... which, as I asserted earlier, is a textbook example of emotional blackmail ... and the thread did go almost completely silent until someone pointed it out.

[USU78]

And yet you did tell Scott that the things he says on this topic have been pushing your closer and closer to leaving the Church, knowing how much Scott values Church membership ... which, as I asserted earlier, is a textbook example of emotional blackmail ... and the thread did go almost completely silent until someone pointed it out.

 

The bullying of those who claim, falsely, to have been bullied.

 

And things like that.

[carbon dioxide]

Nope.  Nor have I ever claimed that SSM would someday be santified by God.  I only point out that there has never been a revelation on this subject and that it is possible that at some point, they may be one given to clarify this issue.

 

There is a lot of things we have not received formal revelation on but we should not be expected to either.  God expects us to use our brains and put two and two together.  God has not given a formal revelation on whether it is permissible to marry a pet or a plant or whether a person can have sex with a corpse.  I don't think we should expect one because we SHOULD know the answer to those issues already.  We SHOULD know the answer to SSM as well.  If there are members today who are thinking that God may be ok with SSM, it is not because they have a scriptural or historical reason of why God might be ok with it but that our modern society is being more accepting of it.  And why is modern society more accepting of it.  Is it because modern society is drifting closer to what God wants or being seduced by the devil into all manner of wickedness?

[Scott Lloyd]

Calling it a prophecy intimates that he is setting himself up as a prophet, which he hasn't done.

As I said, I was being facetious. I used the word prophecy once, in the thread title as an attention-getter. It was tongue-in-cheek, similar to what DBMormon did when he (rather cleverly) called himself "Billtradomis" a few posts ago. I wasn't saying Dehlin was setting himself up as a prophet in the sense of a prophet of God; I think most readers of average-or-better intelligence would be able to recognize that.

 

Making up names for those who share in his views comes across as belittling... or implying that they are somehow followers/disciples of Dehlin rather than Christ.

 

I admit to having a bit of fun with the "Dehlinions" coinage. But your statement here is quite a stretch.

 

And I still reject your (and Hamba's) bizarre conclusion that I have emotionally blackmailed you. You haven't been silenced in the least and I have nothing to blackmail you with.

 

Well, I never said you were successful at it. The tactic has never really worked with me.

 

As it turns out, Hamba was applying a term coined by psychotherapist Susan Froward, associated with the acronymn FOG (standing for fear, obligation and guilt). It just seemed apt to me.

 

But don't feel singled out; it's something I've observed for a long time with critics who combat the Church's defenders. You seemed to fit the pattern with the not-so-veiled implication that my interaction with you on this thread was driving you toward apostasy.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

There is a lot of things we have not received formal revelation on but we should not be expected to either.  God expects us to use our brains and put two and two together.  God has not given a formal revelation on whether it is permissible to marry a pet or a plant or whether a person can have sex with a corpse.  I don't think we should expect one because we SHOULD know the answer to those issues already.  We SHOULD know the answer to SSM as well.  If there are members today who are thinking that God may be ok with SSM, it is not because they have a scriptural or historical reason of why God might be ok with it but that our modern society is being more accepting of it.  And why is modern society more accepting of it.  Is it because modern society is drifting closer to what God wants or being seduced by the devil into all manner of wickedness?

Sorry I am just not going to comment on this offensive post.

[Scott Lloyd]

What I recall saying is that global or numerical dominance is not necessary to validate the truth claims of the Church. CFR that I've said growth and retention are not necessary in the Church.

 

Perhaps I said at some point that renouncing laws and commandments of God is too great a price to pay for attracting and retaining adherents. Is that what you have in mind? If so, I would respond that the Church can be anxiously engaged in convert baptism and retention without making such an unthinkable compromise.

 

 

 

 

I've made my position clear: Growth and retention are vital, but not at the cost of caving in on divinely given laws, principles and direction. I believe we can have the one without doing the other.

How about you answer the CFR so we can all see what it is you're misconstruing?

Or just go and enjoy what's left of the holiday weekend with your family as you said you would do the other day when you told me I would have the last word?

 

 

So are you saying that growth and retention ARE a necessary part of the Church? If so, I'll retract my statement.

What is unclear about what I said in my two prior posts quoted above?

 

Answer the CFR -- or admit that you can't.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Sorry I am just not going to comment on this offensive post.

 

Best use of apophasis I've seen in a long time! Thanks, california boy, for the smile!

[Scott Lloyd]

So you are suggesting that what BY meant is that blacks would not be permitted to hold the priesthood until a revelation was received that they *could* hold the priesthood. You're suggesting that the remaining "Sons of Adam" that the Blacks had to wait upon was themselves. Fascinating.

I'm saying that, as with other things that Brother Brigham reportedly said on occasion, it's hard to pin down his meaning. I'm not obliged to accept your interpretation of it as the definitive word any more than I am anybody else's.

 

He could have been saying that they would receive the priesthood in a day when the restored gospel had attained a global reach -- which is pretty much how things transpired.

 

I'm also saying that Spencer W. Kimball, as quoted in OD2, obviously did not agree with the interpretation you are determined to put on Brigham Young's words. I regard President Kimball as a prophet too.

 

Do I regard rockpond as a prophet? Sorry, no. Not in this instance. (Notwithstanding my facetious thread title.)

Edited February 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Best use of apophasis I've seen in a long time! Thanks, california boy, for the smile!

Apophasis -- I had to look that one up too.

 

Reading your posts is a continual education.