Tribune Op Ed: Section 132 In Seminary This Week

[Gray]

Only if you are expecting said exceptions and seeking them out. I try not to spend my days seeking out exceptions to the laws of God. If I am involved in one it is God's job to tell me.

 

I am more worried about those who exempt themselves from prophetic counsel thinking they know better and seeking to become a law unto themselves.

 

Most of the monstrous suffering of the 20th century came about by sublimating the conscience and the overarching principle of unconditional love to authority or to dogma.  It just not an approach that bears good fruit.  

Edited April 2, 2015 by Gray

[The Nehor]

Most of the monstrous suffering of the 20th century came about by sublimating the conscience and the overarching principle of unconditional love to authority or to dogma.  It just not an approach that bears good fruit.  

 

No, most of it came from disobedience of God's commandments cutting them off from the source of happiness. Admittedly some of that came from suppressing the Light of Christ for some other goal but it is not the general rule.

[thesometimesaint]

Wow, that's really interesting!

 

So by deduction, should we then be expecting an additional work  to be introduced in the temples; that of proxy plural sealings/marriages.

 

Marriages are for the living. Sealing can encompass both living and dead. We already Seal men to more than one wife, after the first wife is dead.

[Senator]

 We already Seal men to more than one wife, after the first wife is dead.

 

I realize that.

 

But what of all the men, now living or deceased, that wish to enter into God's glory, and only had one wife (or no wife for that matter)?

 

.....and also I care little for the attempted distinction made between "marriage" and "sealing".

[Kenngo1969]

... As I said, we are in the image of God. It follows then that our innate sense of morality and reason ought not to be tossed aside so lightly. 

Your mortal children, assuming you have any (forgive me if that's not the case: I know what assuming makes out of you and me , so I apologize) also are created, in part, in your image, but that doesn't mean they have your adult perspective, know everything you know, or can do everything you can do ... yet.

[thesometimesaint]

I realize that.

 

But what of all the men, now living or deceased, that wish to enter into God's glory, and only had one wife (or no wife for that matter)?

 

.....and also I care little for the attempted distinction made between "marriage" and "sealing".

 

The living can get married and Sealed if they want to. For the dead I guess they could come back and tell the us. But TTBOMK none have done so.

 

Really you should care. I'm Married and Sealed to just my wife. For my parents and children I'm Sealed but not married to them.

[Gray]

No, most of it came from disobedience of God's commandments cutting them off from the source of happiness. Admittedly some of that came from suppressing the Light of Christ for some other goal but it is not the general rule.

 

The process is the same. 

 

If you can't trust your own conscience to guide you towards what are the highest commandments, then you can't trust yourself to choose others to do it for you. 

Edited April 2, 2015 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

Wow, that's really interesting!

 

So by deduction, should we then be expecting an additional work  to be introduced in the temples; that of proxy plural sealings/marriages.

 

Well, I did specify that the revelation was NOT canon, official, or approved.  It's never been disavowed, so if God DID say it then you would be right.

 

That's why we get a 1000 year millennial period to fix all our sealing errors.

[Gray]

Your mortal children, assuming you have any (forgive me if that's not the case: I know what assuming makes out of you and me , so I apologize) also are created, in part, in your image, but that doesn't mean they have your adult perspective, know everything you know, or can do everything you can do ... yet.

 

This is true (yes I'm a dad). But in absence of me directly sitting down with my child, his conscience is also his best guidepost too. I try to teach him to learn to make moral choices based on larger generally applicable principles, not just do whatever I say because I said it. Learning how to distinguish right from wrong is more important than just doing something because I said so.

[The Nehor]

The process is the same. 

 

If you can't trust your own conscience to guide you towards what are the highest commandments, then you can't trust yourself to choose others to do it for you.

I trust revelation more then either.

[Gray]

I trust revelation more then either.

 

You trust the Holy Ghost more than the Light of Christ? 

[The Nehor]

You trust the Holy Ghost more than the Light of Christ?

Yes.

[JLHPROF]

You trust the Holy Ghost more than the Light of Christ? 

 

The light of Christ is that which prompts us to choose good.  But it provides no information.

The Holy Ghost provides pure intelligence (knowledge) on questions.

 

Revelation is on a scale (in my opinion).  All the way from the prompting of the light of Christ at the basic, up through inspiration/confirmation from the Holy Ghost, to direct revelation, on to visions, and then visitations.  (With probably some other levels in between).

[sunstoned]

Obviously your parents' opinions are wrong -- and I venture to say quite uncommon in this day and age.

 

In any event, I was talking about the authoritative teachings of the Church, not residual ill-informed impressions that might linger here and there.

Did you see the page and a half of quotes from church leaders?  To brush off something that openly taught, written about, and preached by the church as ill-informed impressions is in my opinion disingenuous.

[Scott Lloyd]

Did you see the page and a half of quotes from church leaders?  To brush off something that openly taught, written about, and preached by the church as ill-informed impressions is in my opinion disingenuous.

I categorically reject your criticism that I'm being disingenuous. I have done nothing more nor less than what the Church itself has done in disavowing prior theories about the reason for the priesthood restriction.

 

Informed, experienced and honest Church members will recognize a distinction between personal opinions -- even those expressed by high-ranking Church leaders -- and authoritative doctrines and positions taught administratively by the Church as an institution.

[JLHPROF]

I categorically reject your criticism that I'm being disingenuous. I have done nothing more nor less than what the Church itself has done in disavowing prior theories about the reason for the priesthood restriction.

 

Informed, experienced and honest Church members will recognize a distinction between personal opinions -- even those expressed by high-ranking Church leaders -- and authoritative doctrines and positions taught administratively by the Church as an institution.

 

Sorry Scott, but on this particular issue you really are being a bit disingenuous.

I don't know how much more official than a first presidency official statement in 1949 you can get.  That was hardly opinion.

It is at least as official as either OD or the Proclamation.  All are just official statements from the First Presidency of the time.

 

You and the Church can disavow them, but pretending they were never taught as anything other than opinion is false.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry Scott, but on this particular issue you really are being a bit disingenuous.

I don't know how much more official than a first presidency official statement in 1949 you can get.  That was hardly opinion.

It is at least as official as either OD or the Proclamation.  All are just official statements from the First Presidency of the time.

 

You and the Church can disavow them, but pretending they were never taught as anything other than opinion is false.

Refresh my memory: Is that the statement that was unearthed from obscure and unofficial private correspondence?

Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

Refresh my memory: Is that the statement that was unearthed from obscure and unofficial private correspondence?

 

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=457

http://bycommonconsent.com/2004/04/21/a-statement-from-the-first-presidency/

First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)

 

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

 

I really don't know how much more "official" you can get.

[Scott Lloyd]

I really don't know how much more "official" you can get.

Regarding the first sentence you have bolded above, this is not part of what has been disavowed by the Church. Though some have been confused on this point, especially in the wake of the essays on lds.org, the Church in fact has not backed away from the understanding that the priesthood restriction, whatever the reasoning behind it, was a commandment from the Lord.

 

The second bolded statement is merely a general statement of principle, namely that what went on in the pre-mortal existence has some determining influence on what happens in mortality. The statement goes on to acknowledge that "the details of this principle have not been made known."

 

I don't read this as saying those of African lineage were unworthy in the pre-mortal existence, any more than I read it as saying that, because I was born in Utah to parents who were active and faithful in the Church, I am better or more valiant than, say, my friend in Liverpool, England, a former stake president who found the Church in his teens and subsequently, through his energy and commitment, brought many people into the Church.

 

The quotation from Brigham Young, as I have said before, is so unclear and ambiguous as to be of limited help in bringing understanding to this matter.

 

The quotation from Wilford Woodruff I like much better: ""The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

Regarding the first sentence you have bolded above, this is not part of what has been disavowed by the Church. Though some have been confused on this point, especially in the wake of the essays on lds.org, the Church in fact has not backed away from the understanding that the priesthood restriction, whatever the reasoning behind it, was a commandment from the Lord.

 

The second bolded statement is merely a general statement of principle, namely that what went on in the pre-mortal existence has some determining influence on what happens in mortality. The statement goes on to acknowledge that "the details of this principle have not been made known."

 

I don't read this as saying those of African lineage were unworthy in the pre-mortal existence, any more than I read it as saying that, because I was born in Utah to parents who were active and faithful in the Church, I am better or more worthy than, say, my friend in Liverpool, England, a former stake president who found the Church in his teens and subsequently, through his energy and commitment, brought many people into the Church.

 

Really?  The statement says what it says.  It's pretty clear.

 

Edited April 3, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

Really?  The statement says what it says.  It's pretty clear.

So when you can't articulate a good rebuttal, find a graphic image on the Internet that does no more than restate what you said before.

 

Roughly the rhetorical equivalent of saying "nuh-uh!"

Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Really?  The statement says what it says.  It's pretty clear.

 

 

We should have more respect for Scott's parsing techniques... they'll be used in 39 years* to explain how old church teachings fit with our new acceptance of gay marriage.  

 

*I don't have Scott's countdown clock or I would post the exact timing.

Edited April 3, 2015 by rockpond

[stemelbow]

I'm not sure how it's so easily dismissed that the official position of the Church stated in 1949 was mere opinion as it quoted the reason for the "skin of blackness" curse from Brigham Young, even that which was disavowed by the Church recently.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure how it's so easily dismissed that the official position of the Church stated in 1949 was mere opinion as it quoted the reason for the "skin of blackness" curse from Brigham Young, even that which was disavowed by the Church recently.

When it is taken in context -- especially when paired with the Wilford Woodruff quote -- I see their quotation of President Young as being an emphasis of the last part, that those of African lineage "will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to," moreso than an endorsement of the "curse" and "seed of Cain" bit.

 

Because of its problematic elements, I wish the Brigham Young quote had been left out altogether. But I don't concede that its presence destroys the overarching message of the statement: the assurance that "at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood," as President Kimball expressed it in OD 2.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

So when you can't articulate a good rebuttal, find a graphic image on the Internet that does no more than restate what you said before.

 

Roughly the rhetorical equivalent of saying "nuh-uh!"

 

Well when your rebuttal involves manipulating words and taking things out of context based on preconceived notions I call that a tap dance.

 

Look, I agree with you that SSM is wrong and as of right now I don't see the Church changing, or any time in the next few years.

But to say that the Church never changed official doctrine on the negro, that it was always just opinion, is simply not true, no matter how you bend the recorded official doctrine.

 

The "graphic" described what you were doing perfectly.