BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 It took 3 years for a new prophet to be called after JS's death. Makes me wonder why God would let the church hang without one for so long, where was He during that time, I wonder. How do we even know BY was God's first choice. Well, he did make like a glow-worm and shape shift at that one meeting where several witnesses were not actually present. So we have that.
rockpond Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 It always comes down to blaming BY and painting him as a racist. So it's not that anybody here is trying to fix blame... It's just that you don't like it that the discussion makes BY look racist? Or is someone calling him a racist?
ERayR Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 It took 3 years for a new prophet to be called after JS's death. Makes me wonder why God would let the church hang without one for so long, where was He during that time, I wonder. How do we even know BY was God's first choice. Maybe because he had a full quorum of 12 prophets already in place and there were more pressing matters. Just a thought.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 By trying to fix blame? How does that help solve current problems?Understanding the past is key to learning from our mistakes and trying to forge a brighter future. We don't fix blame in the past, but rather attempt to understand how and why mistakes were made so that we can avoid repeating them again. Oftentimes understanding the past is the key to understanding the problems of the present.
thesometimesaint Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Thank you, sister. Hopefully your reputation for being level-headed and reasonable will give credence to the point that I've been trying to make for quite some time -- black members of this Church can't just "let go" of the race thing because we are constantly confronted with it. White saints might not ever have to think about it, but not one week goes by where someone (black or white) doesn't ask ME about the priesthood ban. I guess it's not polite to ask a white saint, "Why were your parents so racist?" That makes sense. So instead, they ask ME. And they ask children of color in the Church. And while I know a few of you think that a "testimony bomb" is the answer to any conceivable question, I seriously doubt that clicking your heels three times and saying, "There's no church like home," is going to calm the anxiety of the young teen who is wondering why HF doesn't love her as much as the other children in the ward. Or like my 11 year old son, is wondering when HF will turn him white too. Tell him HF already did with his baptism.
ERayR Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 So it's not that anybody here is trying to fix blame... It's just that you don't like it that the discussion makes BY look racist? Or is someone calling him a racist? Are you deliberately trying to misconstrue the intent of my posts? It is because the blame game does nothing to solve current problems.
mormonnewb Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Who doesn't mingle philosophy with scripture? Scripture itself is mingled with philosophy. Good point. Even I've waded through enough "And it came to passes" to know that the BOM is brimming with philosophica Americana. 12 And it came to pass that he [Moroni] rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole. [He makes a flag] 13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land— Alma 46 About the only thing missing here is for Moroni to take off his baseball cap and start singing the Star-Spangled Banner. NOTE: I am NOT suggesting that JS just "made the whole thing up" or that the BOM isn't the word of God. I'm simply pointing out that the philosophy of men will invariably make its way into scripture so long as HF uses MEN as His scribes. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) Good point. Even I've waded through enough "And it came to passes" to know that the BOM is brimming with philosophica Americana. About the only thing missing here is for Moroni to take off his baseball cap and start singing the Star-Spangled Banner. NOTE: I am NOT suggesting that JS just "made the whole thing up" or that the BOM isn't the word of God. I'm simply pointing out that the philosophy of men will invariably make its way into scripture so long as HF uses MEN as His scribes. Correction: He made a banner. References to banners are throughout scripture. How is that an American pride philosophy from JS? Edited May 6, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr
ERayR Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Understanding the past is key to learning from our mistakes and trying to forge a brighter future. We don't fix blame in the past, but rather attempt to understand how and why mistakes were made so that we can avoid repeating them again. Oftentimes understanding the past is the key to understanding the problems of the present. I understand the principle but approaching it with preconceived conclusions can not be conducive to developing usable information.
Buckeye Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) Understanding the past is key to learning from our mistakes and trying to forge a brighter future. We don't fix blame in the past, but rather attempt to understand how and why mistakes were made so that we can avoid repeating them again. Oftentimes understanding the past is the key to understanding the problems of the present. My family heritage includes a lot of bad actions (slavery, breaking family bonds, etc.) At the appropriate age, I teach my children about these actions. Not so that they judge their ancestors, but so they learn how progress takes place. Each generation receives some measure of evil. The better parts of the generation wrestle with the evil and find ways to hold onto their ancestors without passing the evil on to the future. Emulating Christ, they drink of a bitter cup but don't become bitter themselves. To use racism as an example, my grandparents received a lot of racism and passed only a little to my parents. My parents received that little and passed down none to me. I want my children to understand that their lack of racism is not due to any great effort on my part (or theirs). We're not inherently better than prior generations. Rather, we are blessed to receive the fruits of prior generations' decision to expunge their wrongful traditions. I teach this to my children so that they can properly judge the past, and also so that they are prepared for times in the future when they need to expunge false teachings they have received from my generation. Edit for typos and clarity. Edited May 6, 2015 by Buckeye 2
rockpond Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Are you deliberately trying to misconstrue the intent of my posts? It is because the blame game does nothing to solve current problems. Nope. I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I agree, the blame game does nothing to solve current problems. It sure seems like the church essay has already attributed the ban to President Young anyhow. I guess I just don't understand what you see as the issue. You said we shouldn't try to fix blame. So I asked who is trying to fix blame. Then you said you don't like BY being painted as a racist. So I asked if someone was calling him a racist or if you just didn't like that the conversation made him seem racist. If it's that the discussion makes him seem racist -- what do you propose we do to remedy it?
Scott Lloyd Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Very freeing- I don't have to try to justify a man-made policy with no justification in scripture- especially in light of the Savior and His atonement.Which is probably why you are not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Disavowing all past racism does not declare the pre-1978 practice to be in error. You are making an a priori assumption that it came about in the first place only due to racism, not because it conformed to the will of God. No a priori assumptions are needed to conclude that a race-based ban is by definition racist. You are begging the question. On the unanimity thing, there had never been an instance prior to 1978 of the president of the Church declaring to have received a specific revelation from God in answer to his supplications on this question. As I understand it, there had been attempts prior to 1978 When, prior to 1978, was there an instance of the president of the Church seeking and receiving clear, revelatory direction on the matter?
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Which is probably why you are not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.Depends on how you define the term "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".Am I a member of the Restored church? Yes.Are my membership records held in SLC? No.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) Your the one who says the ban is inspired. You are the one who is out in front of the Brethren here doing the ark steadying. I'm sure you are aware of the OD 2 heading in the scriptures now: I am not aware of any place where the church is currently defending the ban as divinely inspired. If the church claims not to know, I'd say the church is fine with either position (could have been a mistake, or could have been the will of the Lord) as long as we remain open to future light and knowledge. Teaching either as the only interpretation would not be inline with where the brethren are.My consistent position has been that one should not make declarations that the Church itself has not made. Again, I refer you to calmoriah's post, which provides a very reasonable and prudent model of what might be said. Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Tacenda Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 One of the essays was mentioned a few weeks ago. I thanked the intructor for mentioning the essay. The instructor responded "Until they get more mention, I will keep bringing them up." As for going to the Salt Lake Tribune, about this account, my attitude is "oh well". Some interesting bits from the article: Then, the former teacher says, his bishop insisted that Dawson agree never again to bring up the essay or discuss "black Mormon history" in the class.Dawson declined — even after believing he would be "released" from teaching the class for disobedience. "If the [Holy] Spirit guides me in a way that involves these multitude of documents," he asked the bishop, "who am I to resist the enticing of the Spirit?" The bishop replied, according to Dawson, "The Spirit is telling me to tell you not to use those documents." .... Eventually, their local LDS leaders agreed that Dawson's materials were legitimate but decided he shouldn't teach them anyway. It was too much for the kids, they argued, and church was not the right venue for the discussion.Sounds like someone is suffering a little cognitive dissonance after reading the church essay.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Depends on how you define the term "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".Am I a member of the Restored church? Yes.Are my membership records held in SLC? No.I define it as the Church headquartered in Salt Lake City presided over by Thomas S. Monson. I'm going by what I see reflected on your blog, to which you have provided a link.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 My consistent position has been that one should not make declarations that the Church itself has not made. The, apparent, current position of "We have no idea how it got started or why." from a church that claims modern revelation, doesn't exactly instill a whole lot of confidence for those sincerely seeking answers.
Buckeye Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Which is probably why you are not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm an active member who believes the ban was wholly man-made and lacks any scriptural justification. I also believe that most church leaders who instituted and promolgated the ban (including Brigham) did so out of ignorance much more than malice. I have no problem sustaining any of them as leaders. 2
Calm Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Sounds like someone is suffering a little cognitive dissonance after reading the church essay.It is presented as all participants quite secure in their positions, so it doesn't seem like any ongoing discomfort to me. 2
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 I define it as the Church headquartered in Salt Lake City presided over by Thomas S. Monson. I'm going by what I see reflected on your blog, to which you have provided a link. By your definition then I guess I am not a member. Excellent! Thanks for checking it out!
Scott Lloyd Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 I'm an active member who believes the ban was wholly man-made and lacks any scriptural justification. I also believe that most church leaders who instituted and promolgated the ban (including Brigham) did so out of ignorance much more than malice. I have no problem sustaining any of them as leaders.My comment was to BookofMormonLuvr. And what I said was not just a guess. His blog reflects that he is a disaffected Community of Christ member with loose Restorationist branch leanings. He is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Calm Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 The, apparent, current position of "We have no idea how it got started or why." from a church that claims modern revelation, doesn't exactly instill a whole lot of confidence for those sincerely seeking answers.We specifically claim we don't have all the answers now though, it is an ongoing process so if anyone thinks otherwise they have misinterpreted the claim. 2
Buckeye Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 My consistent position has been that one should not make declarations that the Church itself has not made. Again, I refer you to calmoriah's post, which provides a very reasonable and prudent model of what might be said. You can't be literally serious. Members make all kinds of declarations the church has not made - weather reports, statements to police officers, etc. I would agree that members should not try to speak on the church's behalf if they lack authority. I think most everyone here agrees with that. However, that doesn't mean members should not state their own personal beliefs, so long as it is understood that they are speaking for themselves. Heck, church leaders do that all the time. As one example, Elder Faust gave his opinion that women should not engage in boxing. He made it clear that was just his opinion. I can't image you would fault Elder Faust for going beyond official church teachings. So why fault other members who state their personal opinion that the ban was not inspired? 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 We specifically claim we don't have all the answers now though, it is an ongoing process so if anyone thinks otherwise they have misinterpreted the claim.One would hope that some clarification would be forthcoming for a topic that causes such consternation both out, and in, the church.Would it be so hard to say, "Sometimes we get things wrong."
Recommended Posts