Bishop Dismisses Sunday School Teacher For Using Essay.

[Nevo]

I myself would point out that all past justifications for the ban have been disavowed but we don't have any more information on why or how it started then they did (generally speaking) so perhaps it would be best to refrain from attempting to come up with a justification and instead learn how to actively wait upon the Lord for further knowledge.

 

I don't think this is still true. I'm not even sure that it was true in 2012. We now know quite a lot about when, how, and why the priesthood restriction came about.

[rongo]

I don't see both propositions as having equal validity. The default position was always that the ban was consistent with the will of God. The essay does not remove that assumption from its default position; all it does is repudiate past theoretical and unauthoritative explanations for it.

I don't, either. But, both propositions are possible and available. That is the legacy of the essays. I think that teachers and leaders should use them as lifelines for those whom they work for. Even when one's own personal views differ.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is my religious background (from the beginning):

 

1) LDS

2) Fundamentalist Mormon

3) Restoration Branches (w/ a fiercely independent streak that fits neither "Josephite" nor "Brighamite" camp)

So you have, by definition, apostatized from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then.

[Nevo]

Memory is often an unfaithful mistress.

 

Hey, I resent analogies to unfaithful mistresses.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't, either. But, both propositions are possible and available. That is the legacy of the essays. I think that teachers and leaders should use them as lifelines for those whom they work for. Even when one's own personal views differ.

Bottom line: I don't think it is healthy to go around proclaiming that the Church perpetuated an error for nearly a century and a half when the Church itself has not made that acknowledgment -- or to teach others to do so.

[rongo]

Hey, I resent analogies to unfaithful mistresses.

 

I know. Have you ever known any families torn apart by infidelity?

 

Not funny, guys. Not funny.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So you have, by definition, apostatized from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then.

 

Perhaps, by your definition.

I place myself in the "general heretic" category.

[rongo]

Bottom line: I don't think it is healthy to go around proclaiming that the Church perpetuated an error for nearly a century and a half when the Church itself has not made that acknowledgment -- or to teach others to do so.

I firmly agree. But I have found (a la the essays) that it is helpful for some to know that this is one way of looking at it.

 

I always make it clear where I stand, but I do acknowledge the alternatives.

[Scott Lloyd]

Memory is often an unfaithful mistress.

 

 

Which is why I went to your website subsequently and pulled out a verbatim quote -- to show where my earlier impression came from.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

a·pos·tate

əˈpäsˌtāt,-***/

noun

 

1. 1.

   a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.

   synonyms: dissenter, defector, deserter, traitor, backslider, turncoat; More

    

    

    

    

    

      

adjective

 

1. 1.

   abandoning a religious or political belief or principle.
   
   
   

   her·e·tic

   ˈherəˌtik/

   noun

    

   1. a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.

      synonyms: dissenter, nonconformist, apostate, freethinker, iconoclast; More

       

       

       

         

      • a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.
        
         

[Scott Lloyd]

Hey, I resent analogies to unfaithful mistresses.

 

Or the insinuation that I am consorting with an unfaithful mistress.

 

Grrr! Where's that "report" button?

[canard78]

What analogy would you use in its place to make the point?

 

"Are you still embezzling from your company"? Some might find that offensive too.

 

 

I wouldn't go all "drama queen" if you did . . .

 

Ooops. Let me re-phrase that . . .

 

 

Okay.

 

 

I wasn't active on the board around then, and don't remember it. 

 

I find calmoriah's objection to "drinking the koolaid" as an analogous reference to Jonestown to be equally PC on steroids.

 

Oops. Anabolic steroids use is a serious problem afflicting many people. Let me rephrase that . . .

 

You see? The PC police are striving to eliminate any figurative or colorful language from our language in the name of never offending anyone, no matter how trivial their objections.

 

Like I said. If you consider it appropriate to make light of an horrific crime that's your choice. Just keep me out of it. Nehor, I've reported your post. I'll leave it with the mods to decide whether it's acceptable or not.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Which is why I went to your website subsequently and pulled out a verbatim quote -- to show where my earlier impression came from.

Must have missed that quote. Did you add it later?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

 

a·pos·tate

əˈpäsˌtāt,-***/

noun

 

1. 1.

   a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.

   synonyms: dissenter, defector, deserter, traitor, backslider, turncoat; More

    

    

    

    

    

      

adjective

 

1. 1.

   abandoning a religious or political belief or principle.

   her·e·tic

   ˈherəˌtik/

   noun

    

   1. a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.

      synonyms: dissenter, nonconformist, apostate, freethinker, iconoclast; More

       

       

       

         

      • a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

         

 

I prefer the 2nd definition under the heretic entry to describe myself.

[Scott Lloyd]

Only if someone objects and the removal wouldn't harm the thread.

 

 

 

Again, we disagree. That's fine.

 

To answer your question, though, I find it helpful to present this option because many youth already believe this (that the ban was wrong) and the knowledge that their belief is acceptable is reassuring. It can be very damaging to a youth's testimony to force them into essentially the following conundrum: "the church has acknowledged that all the justifications we gave are wrong, but you can't believe the ban itself was wrong; no, you have to keep wrestling until you come up with a better reason than those given by prophets and apostles for 100+ years." I find that kind of challenge to be too much for some youth (and frankly some adults).

God and Jesus appearing to a 14-year-old and angels delivering gold plates to humans in 1820s frontier America are tough concepts for a lot of people to swallow.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

I don't, either. But, both propositions are possible and available. That is the legacy of the essays. I think that teachers and leaders should use them as lifelines for those whom they work for. Even when one's own personal views differ.

 

Much better stated that I did. This isn't about which view is correct. It's about whether the "mistake" view is allowed. Just as some members are struggling to accept the new reality that the church allows members in good standing to support civil SSM, I'm not surprised that some would struggle to accept that members are allowed to believe leaders made doctrinal errors. That's a big deal. But it is allowed.

[Scott Lloyd]

Must have missed that quote. Did you add it later?

Yes.

[rongo]

Like I said. If you consider it appropriate to make light of an horrific crime that's your choice. Just keep me out of it. Nehor, I've reported your post. I'll leave it with the mods to decide whether it's acceptable or not.

In all seriousness, though, that is the nature of figurative language. You're acting like people who use colorful and figurative analogies (similes, metaphors, etc.) don't care about domestic violence, Jonestown, etc. 

 

Sometimes these analogies are very thought-provoking *because* of their origins, but they are only taken literally by _______________ ) I'll let you fill in the blank with an appropriate, non-offensive term.

[The Nehor]

Like I said. If you consider it appropriate to make light of an horrific crime that's your choice. Just keep me out of it. Nehor, I've reported your post. I'll leave it with the mods to decide whether it's acceptable or not.

In the interests of full disclosure I also just reported this post for insinuating that I am soft on crime. I probably am but I still find it offensive.

[Scott Lloyd]

Like I said. If you consider it appropriate to make light of an horrific crime that's your choice. Just keep me out of it. Nehor, I've reported your post. I'll leave it with the mods to decide whether it's acceptable or not.

You're OK with the "memory is and unfaithful mistress" then?

[Calm]

I don't think this is still true. I'm not even sure that it was true in 2012. We now know quite a lot about when, how, and why the priesthood restriction came about.

So do you believe we have enough to make a definitive judgment or are there still some significant gaps in your view?

 

I want to know why Pres. McKay was told "not yet" by the Lord.  If I knew that, I think I would be at a point that I would say "this is what I believe happened" as opposed to "I can think of a couple of possibilities I see it as being narrowed down to..."

 

I anticipate the book by Reeves as being ground shifting so maybe when I have a chance to read more about that or even read it, I will be more definite in my view.

Edited May 6, 2015 by calmoriah

[Buckeye]

God and Jesus appearing to a 14-year-old and angels delivering gold plates to humans are tough concepts for a lot of people to swallow.

 

Yes, but they're also positive events. Exclusion from ordinances of salvation based on race has no redeeming value. The youth I'm think of in this thread are open to divine and miraculous positive events; not so much divine and miraculous racism.

[ERayR]

Or perhaps we could just honor Canard's wishes. Seriously, whether of not the phrase is common is not the point. The use of the phrase by Nehor was not particularly germane to this thread. Canard found it offensive. The phrase should be removed. It's really that simple.

 

May I have posts removed that I find offensive?

[Buckeye]

So do you believe we have enough to make a definitive judgment or are there still some significant gaps in your view?

 

I want to know why Pres. McKay was told "not yet" by the Lord.  If I knew that, I think I would be at a point that I would say "this is what I believe happened" as opposed to "I can think of a couple of possibilities I see it as being narrowed down to..."

 

I mentioned this earlier, but I think the context matters greatly here. President McKay felt it important that all the FP/Q12 be on the same page for the change. Clearly that wasn't the case during his lifetime. I can see why in those circumstances he would be told "not yet." I read that response as an invitation to President McKay to keep wrestling with his brethren rather than an indication that God somehow found value in excluding blacks from the priesthood and temple. There's a great benefit (both individually and collectively) when someone wrestles with a wrong and chooses to put it away because they see the evil in it, rather than putting it away simply because one is commanded. That benefit is maturity.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

May I have posts removed that I find offensive?

 

I'd extend the same courtesy to you.