Mark E Petersen On Race

[rockpond]

I agree with you about very little.

You are very consciously misrepresenting my side of the discussion, which is hardly surprising.

Given that you have told us that you intentionally keep your priesthood leaders in the dark as to your activities, and the positions you argue here, in order to avoid incurring Church discipline for apostasy, it shouldn't really come as news to you.

I, for one, haven't forgotten your "scent of hypocrisy" thread; and probably won't for a while.

No, I wasn't consciously misrepresenting your side. We were discussing acknowledged satire. Not every word is true or accurate but it was based in certain truths or it wouldn't be satire.

I openly acknowledge the negative tone the satire had and agree with you on those points. But we also both agree that there was some validity there as well. Your words.

And I have actually been quite open with my leaders about my beliefs.

Not sure what you're "not forgetting" about the scent of hypocrisy thread but feel free to PM me as to not derail here.

[Calm]

So do I let him continue to call me anti-mormon when I am not?

No, report him to the mods. You have to be consistent in your restraint for them to believe, a slip here and there, they will see it as more like manipulation or at least that is what it looks like to me observing their choices. But If you reply in kind though, they will likely ignore both of you because from the outside it looks like both of you enjoy it since it doesn't appear anyone is trying to stop pushing the others' buttons.

Hey, if one side stops and the others don't, I will throw my weight in to get the mods to shut the still violating one down....as long as I see no passive aggressive button pushing egging him on, and that includes playing victim, saying you expect that behaviour from him. Russell probably knows exactly what I don't care for in his arguments and what I would see as a board violation. We go way too far back. So no explanation necessary.

No intent to be a board nanny, just will be reporting to mods when someone breaks the rules and the others does not.

I won't be commenting at all.

Just an idea

Edited August 31, 2015 by calmoriah

[TheSkepticChristian]

Which seems to imply that the group he was talking about was not racist in the 1950s, which group was the American Jews.

 

LOL It is probably true that not everybody in the world was racist in the 1950s, I was not talking about all Jews, but it is clear that some of them were not. 

Mr. Sanders is a good example, he is an American Jew that was arrested for protesting segregation. Bernie was never racist. 

 

Some American Jews were probably very racist, but as a group they were better than most Christian groups, I said that many times. 

 

Please don´t misrepresent what I say, I been saying many times that the American Jews were not perfect. 

 

 

 

Really, no one is going to be able to give you a better answer until you find out for yourself. Then you won't need one.

 

I have bigger questions, but I receive no answers. I cannot even receive a clear testimony, but I want to. 

Edited August 31, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[rockpond]

No, report him to the mods. You have to be consistent in your restraint for them to believe, a slip here and there, they will see it as more like manipulation or at least that is what it looks like to me observing their choices. But If you reply in kind though, they will likely ignore both of you because from the outside it looks like both of you enjoy it since it doesn't appear anyone is trying to stop pushing the others' buttons.

Hey, if one side stops and the others don't, I will throw my weight in to get the mods to shut the still violating one down....as long as I see no passive aggressive button pushing egging him on, and that includes playing victim, saying you expect that behaviour from him. Russell probably knows exactly what I don't care for in his arguments and what I would see as a board violation. We go way too far back. So no explanation necessary.

No intent to be a board nanny, just will be reporting to mods when someone breaks the rules and the others does not.

I won't be commenting at all.

Just an idea

Thanks for your wisdom and thoughtfulness.

[rockpond]

I agree with you about very little.

You are very consciously misrepresenting my side of the discussion, which is hardly surprising.

Given that you have told us that you intentionally keep your priesthood leaders in the dark as to your activities, and the positions you argue here, in order to avoid incurring Church discipline for apostasy, it shouldn't really come as news to you.

I, for one, haven't forgotten your "scent of hypocrisy" thread; and probably won't for a while.

In thinking about what Calmoriah has said. A better way for me to respond would have been to say something along these lines:

I'd like to have a thoughtful, nuanced discussion about these topics. And you made some of those points in your response. But to continue the discussion, I would need you to accept that I am coming at this from a faithful perspective, that I am an active member who loves the church. While our perspectives differ dramatically, there is common ground for us, both as faithful members.

[Robert F. Smith]

Try quoting him to that effect -- that TheSkepticChristian claimed "the pure, sanitized non-racism of American Jews."  

 

From Skeptic:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65955-mark-e-petersen-on-race/page-3#entry1209530747

 

Which seems to imply that the group he was talking about was not racist in the 1950s, which group was the American Jews.

 

Now he may not have meant that given he also said a little later...but it is not an absolute, he allows for them being free from racism, just that they were probably not:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65955-mark-e-petersen-on-race/page-11#entry1209531181

 

 

And then he goes on to say the below which to me implies he is again stating American Jews were not racist since the discussion is about being racist due to being a product of a person's time, but perhaps he meant they were racist because of their beliefs and not because of the culture of the 1950s.

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65955-mark-e-petersen-on-race/page-16#entry1209531668

 

At the very least, his claims are somewhat confusing.

Just as I thought, cal.  Russell claimed that TheSkepticChristian had maintained "the pure, sanitized non-racism of American Jews," which he had not.  Those were Russell's words, not the Skeptic's.  I know of no one, including the Jews themselves, who has ever claimed that there are not now and have never been racist Jews.  That was not in any case the subject of our discussion, and was a red herring thrown out by Russell simply to distract from the historical facts.

 

I have restrained myself from suggesting the real reasons for Russell's obfuscation, because I am not a mind reader.  It would be charitable to say that perhaps he simply doesn't understand history.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Bobbieaware]

Before I respond, I want to know if you've answered all of my questions. I can see the answers to 1 and 2 but I'm not sure about questions 3 and 4.

I said I wanted to take one question at a time and I meant it. If you will take a look at my post, you'll see I highlighted your question number 1 -- not the other questions -- and that's the question I answered.

Despite all the assumptions by some that I was using the 'one question at a time' method as some sort of stalling tactic, I simply wanted to proceed one item at a time because, for me, conducting discussions on very controversial topics in this manner promotes clarity of thought and deliberative thinking. When dealing with extreme controversy, it's my belief that if if there's too much on the "plate" all at once too many hotly contested ideas can assault the mind simultaneously, often causing the equivalent of a written communications firestorm. On a delicate subject such as this, each individual item in the debate deserves a full hearing, a complete answer, and plenty of time for the recipient to focus on a specific answer to an important specific question without immediately jumping on to the next hot-bottom item. And as you can surely see by my answer to question number 1, I gave what I think is a complete and well-reasoned answer for you to thoroughly consider without distraction. And now that I've answered question number 1, I hope all the adolescent carping from those in the "peanut gallery" will come to an end.

So why don't you go ahead and honor my request by responding to my answer to question number 1 and then we'll move forward in our discussion from there?

Edited August 31, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

Okay.

 

Standard anti-Mormon propaganda technique, as used by HappyJackWagon and fully approved by Rockpond: smearing by association. It's also known as "tarred with the same brush." A thoughtful discussion of those anti-Mormon talking points would show that they actually have some validity, but using them in a drive-by swipe is all it takes for the anti-Mormons to high-five each other on the way past.

 

This has been a standard anti-Mormon claim for a long time. It is actually a wilfull distortion of a statement made by that FARMS apologist (who has thankfully been repudiated by the kinder, gentler Maxwell Institute) Joseph Smith, who said, "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such."

Anti-Mormons like to pretend that a prophet is acting as such whenever he talks about anything remotely doctrinal. But that's not what a prophet in particular does; it's what a preacher does. And while it is true that all prophets have been preachers, not all preachers have been prophets.

A prophet acts as a prophet when he explicitly declares what God has revealed to him.

But this strays dangerously close to nuanced thinking, which anti-Mormons avoid like the plague.

 

No. He isn't.

 

This is another standard anti-Mormon technique. The reality of the former Priesthood ban -- beloved of all the most unprincipled demagogues for its "hot button" value -- requires more of that pesky thoughtful, nuanced discussion. More importantly, it takes a lot more time to defend than attack.

Which is why those who attack the Church of Jesus Christ -- anti-Mormons, in other words -- invariably fall back on it.

 

More rapid-fire accusations. As you perfectly well know, all of them can be defended; as you equally well know, and fully approve, using them in this scatter-gun fashion is simply a matter of slinging as much mud as possible to see if anything sticks long enough to prejudice anyone against the Church of Jesus Christ.

Incidentally, the "Fencesitters" claim is a dead giveaway. It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the person using it loves lies.

President Brigham Young expressly denied it. Not one Prophet or Apostle since his time is on record as supporting it.

The use of this discredited falsehood is anti-Mormonism 101. Only anti-Mormons use it, and only anti-Mormons approve of it.

 

Standard anti-Mormon drivel.

Incidentally, "satire" is a somewhat non-standard way to spell "slander."

Just so you know.

 

There's that "scent of hypocrisy" again.

 

It's interesting that you feel your fundamentalist way of viewing the church, leadership & doctrine is "nuanced".

 

Maybe I need to add another definition to my Mormon Dictionary.

 

I don't see any reasonable rebuttals of my definitions, only attacks.

I am curious though. You said, "A prophet acts as a prophet when he explicitly declares what God has revealed to him."

 

 Does that mean that a prophet must declare he is revealing God's word for us to consider him a prophet and follow him? If that's the case, Would you share the last 3 explicit declarations the prophet has made revealing to us God's will.

 

After a full day of church activities and service I find your accusation of anti-mormonism to be ironic. Just because you find a truth to be embarrassing doesn't mean it is anti-mormon. Lighten up a little. My definitions were meant in jest, but yes, there is truth there. In any case, there may be ways we can communictate politely somwhere between my "anti-mormonism" and your fundamentalism.

 

Edited August 31, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Raingirl]

I said I wanted to take one question at a time and I meant it. If you will take a look at my post, you'll see I highlighted your question number 1 -- not the other questions -- and that's the question I answered.

Despite all the assumptions by some that I was using the 'one question at a time' method as some sort of stalling tactic, I simply wanted to proceed one item at a time because, for me, conducting discussions on very controversial topics in this manner promotes clarity of thought and deliberative thinking. When dealing with extreme controversy, it's my belief that if if there's too much on the "plate" all at once too many hotly contested ideas can assault the mind simultaneously, often causing the equivalent of a written communications firestorm. On a delicate subject such as this, each individual item in the debate deserves a full hearing, a complete answer, and plenty of time for the recipient to focus on a specific answer to an important specific question without immediately jumping on to the next hot-bottom item. And as you can surely see by my answer to question number 1, I gave what I think is a complete and well-reasoned answer for you to thoroughly consider without distraction. And now that I've answered question number 1, I hope all the adolescent carping from those in the "peanut gallery" will come to an end.

So why don't you go ahead and honor my request by responding to my answer to question number 1 and then we'll move forward in our discussion from there?

 

"Peanut gallery" chiming in here.  And, yes, I get to post because - as much as you appear to want to - you do not control the board and the posters thereon.

 

"A complete and well-reasoned" answer is what you gave to number 1?  You went on ad nauseum about what others have said, when the question involved what YOU thought.   Do you not have any thoughts of your own?

 

It was quite straightforward - asking you if you believe BD will be relegated to being a servant in the CK based simply on the fact of her heritage.  Super easy to answer.  You either believe it or not.  Here, let me show you how it is done - "No".   Gosh, that didn't take long to type!  Even an "adolescent" such as myself was able to do it!  Funny, isn't it?  I mean, since you so clearly think no one here is at your level of...what...intelligence?  Holiness?  Or do you not want to admit that you think people of certain ancestries are somehow "less"?

 

Your last sentence is ironic to the point of absurdity.

[thesometimesaint]

. Not sure what you are saying here. Should we not expect a high level of compassion and charity from our leaders? Is it not to be expected that they would not be blind and tone deaf especially on issues such as these? Are you saying the Lord would allow or even condone leaders placing huge obstacles in the way of an entire race just so He could humble a few leaders who lacked common decency and compassionate?

 

What was that obstacle? NO One will be denied any blessing from God through no fault of their own. Maybe the trial was for white racists to repent.

[Tacenda]

"Peanut gallery" chiming in here.  And, yes, I get to post because - as much as you appear to want to - you do not control the board and the posters thereon.

 

"A complete and well-reasoned" answer is what you gave to number 1?  You went on ad nauseum about what others have said, when the question involved what YOU thought.   Do you not have any thoughts of your own?

 

It was quite straightforward - asking you if you believe BD will be relegated to being a servant in the CK based simply on the fact of her heritage.  Super easy to answer.  You either believe it or not.  Here, let me show you how it is done - "No".   Gosh, that didn't take long to type!  Even an "adolescent" such as myself was able to do it!  Funny, isn't it?  I mean, since you so clearly think no one here is at your level of...what...intelligence?  Holiness?  Or do you not want to admit that you think people of certain ancestries are somehow "less"?

 

Your last sentence is ironic to the point of absurdity.

Maybe she's taking so long to answer because she thinks it's a "yes". 

[KevinG]

When the recent essays on polygamy and race were published by the church on their website and in press releases, opinions were split on how that would affect the critics (faithful and opposed) in the church.

 

I hoped it would take away some of the "shock and awe" tactics that pulled some Saints away from their faith.

 

There will always be something, someone said, or did, recently or long ago, that will be taken up as a bludgeon to beat up the Saints with.  Even though we disavowed these theories on race (plainly using the word disavow) and have taught for decades now that they are wrong, we still have a 22 page thread with critics trying to convince us that Elder Petersens talk from 50 years ago is somehow important enough to resurrect and critique.

 

As far as prophets being prophets there is one sure way to determine if their words are indeed prophetic.  Pray and receive your own answer.

 

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him, I am fearful lest they settle down in a state of self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the paths the Lord dictates or not.” -Brigham Young (Journal of Disc. Vol. 9 p. 149-150 )

 

In perspective look at the vast libraries of scripture, teachings, journals, and writings of the Latter-day Saints.  Where do they point?  Where does the Spirit of God point?  Not towards justifying racial superiority, but towards bringing all souls unto Christ.  

 

Even at times when we struggled to understand the role of ethnicity in the church, when we were persecuted for our abolitionist views, when Brigham was trying to justify decisions on race using what I think were apostate protestant teachings, even when we were feeling pressure from the civil rights movement...  there was always hope that we would resolve the questions about race, and Lo and Behold when we as a people were ready to hear, and asked God, it was revealed to us in no uncertain terms that race was not to be used to determine blessings.

 

Was there a schism?  Were there divisions over the revelation?  No.  In fact there are multiple reports of great relief, men weeping, and Saints celebrating the revelation.

 

So why use old talks, outmoded teaching, and false doctrines to beat on the Saints?  Demanding specific apologies for specific words of dead prophets.  It sounds like a couple in an argument that refuse to accept an apology because it wasn't worded exactly as they wanted it.

[ALarson]

Maybe she's taking so long to answer because she thinks it's a "yes". 

You might be right  I also think she started getting the idea that her beliefs weren't too popular on here (or thought too highly of) and had to figure out a way to restate them.  It surely has taken her a lot of time and words and posts to get around to answering (and she still hasn't responded to all of the questions).

 

BlueDreams is an extremely patient, thoughful and kind person from what I've seen here.  

Edited August 31, 2015 by ALarson

[KevinG]

Hmmm... I wonder if I created a sock puppet on multiple Mormonism sites, started teaching the old doctrines about polygamy, Adam God, and Cain, how long it would take before the critics quoted me as an authority on Mormonism and held me up as an example of what the Saints "really believe behind closed doors"?

 

It would be an interesting experiment, but I don't have the time to waste.

[rodheadlee]

 

. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. .

​

 

We will all go to the Celestial Kingdom as servants or we won't be going. Don't you remember Christ washing the feet of the Apostles?

[BlueDreams]

I said I wanted to take one question at a time and I meant it. If you will take a look at my post, you'll see I highlighted your question number 1 -- not the other questions -- and that's the question I answered.

Despite all the assumptions by some that I was using the 'one question at a time' method as some sort of stalling tactic, I simply wanted to proceed one item at a time because, for me, conducting discussions on very controversial topics in this manner promotes clarity of thought and deliberative thinking. When dealing with extreme controversy, it's my belief that if if there's too much on the "plate" all at once too many hotly contested ideas can assault the mind simultaneously, often causing the equivalent of a written communications firestorm. On a delicate subject such as this, each individual item in the debate deserves a full hearing, a complete answer, and plenty of time for the recipient to focus on a specific answer to an important specific question without immediately jumping on to the next hot-bottom item. And as you can surely see by my answer to question number 1, I gave what I think is a complete and well-reasoned answer for you to thoroughly consider without distraction. And now that I've answered question number 1, I hope all the adolescent carping from those in the "peanut gallery" will come to an end.

So why don't you go ahead and honor my request by responding to my answer to question number 1 and then we'll move forward in our discussion from there?

 

Just as much as you apparently like to take it one at a time, I don't like moving forward or hashing things out until I see the whole picture. It's not a good idea generally. I will answer you, but I'm not doing so until I've had all of my questions answered. If you want to do that one at a time, fine. But I'm not responding until all 4 questions are answered. They're connected...they're a set. It's called reciprocity, Bobbie. I've done much of what you've asked but you still haven't done the one thing I've asked from the get go.  Honor is given when you've honored the initial, very simple request on my part. Now two people have answered the questions well before you have. Because of the hesitancy and the insistence that these are somehow controversial questions or there's "hard sayings," I'm assuming one of your answers to the questions is yes or maybe....that's literally the only way this could in any way be difficult.   

 

Also, whether you mean to or not, your tone is coming off as extremely patronizing. I'm not a child and my mind is not so easily assaulted. I just want your answer, as you, to the best of your ability.  

 

Last thing, in the spirit of complete honesty....whether you meant to or not the fact that it's taken now 15 pages and 3 days to answer 1 out of 4 very simply worded questions is not helping your case. The silence is painting you as probably holding racist beliefs. There's literally no other potential controversial point to this...but that you believe we can tell how good a person was in the pre-mortal life by their station in this one which could include their race (particularly pre-1978), wealth, or access to certain privileges such as being able to hear the gospel. And stringing this out while also using words and tones that makes you a teacher of me (a grown, well-educated, religiously-minded and generally thoughtful woman) someone who apparently has poor reading comprehension is not helping. Particularly when the woman involved is brown and the concern being touched on is race. So please, stop treating me like a student unable to really read Peterson's address and start addressing me as an equal. One who can properly read and understand what you're saying without emotionally blowing up all over and think in a "rational" way.

 

PLEASE, just answer the questions. In separate posts if you prefer (but please, not in separate days.....4 days seems way to stringed out for a fast moving message board), but just answer them. I will respond directly to them as soon as you do.

 

With luv,

BD

[rockpond]

When the recent essays on polygamy and race were published by the church on their website and in press releases, opinions were split on how that would affect the critics (faithful and opposed) in the church.

 

I hoped it would take away some of the "shock and awe" tactics that pulled some Saints away from their faith.

 

There will always be something, someone said, or did, recently or long ago, that will be taken up as a bludgeon to beat up the Saints with.  Even though we disavowed these theories on race (plainly using the word disavow) and have taught for decades now that they are wrong, we still have a 22 page thread with critics trying to convince us that Elder Petersens talk from 50 years ago is somehow important enough to resurrect and critique.

 

As far as prophets being prophets there is one sure way to determine if their words are indeed prophetic.  Pray and receive your own answer.

 

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him, I am fearful lest they settle down in a state of self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the paths the Lord dictates or not.” -Brigham Young (Journal of Disc. Vol. 9 p. 149-150 )

 

In perspective look at the vast libraries of scripture, teachings, journals, and writings of the Latter-day Saints.  Where do they point?  Where does the Spirit of God point?  Not towards justifying racial superiority, but towards bringing all souls unto Christ.  

 

Even at times when we struggled to understand the role of ethnicity in the church, when we were persecuted for our abolitionist views, when Brigham was trying to justify decisions on race using what I think were apostate protestant teachings, even when we were feeling pressure from the civil rights movement...  there was always hope that we would resolve the questions about race, and Lo and Behold when we as a people were ready to hear, and asked God, it was revealed to us in no uncertain terms that race was not to be used to determine blessings.

 

Was there a schism?  Were there divisions over the revelation?  No.  In fact there are multiple reports of great relief, men weeping, and Saints celebrating the revelation.

 

So why use old talks, outmoded teaching, and false doctrines to beat on the Saints?  Demanding specific apologies for specific words of dead prophets.  It sounds like a couple in an argument that refuse to accept an apology because it wasn't worded exactly as they wanted it.

 

I'm good with accepting that men make mistakes.  And maybe Today's church doesn't need to apologize for things that past leaders said.

 

What I think would be worth apologizing for is past actions of the institution by the current leaders of the institution.  I greatly appreciate the disavowal and acknowledgement of past racism within the church.  But I think members will continue to be concerned with this issue since the door has been left open that the priesthood & temple ban may have been from God.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm good with accepting that men make mistakes.  And maybe Today's church doesn't need to apologize for things that past leaders said.

 

What I think would be worth apologizing for is past actions of the institution by the current leaders of the institution.  I greatly appreciate the disavowal and acknowledgement of past racism within the church.  But I think members will continue to be concerned with this issue since the door has been left open that the priesthood & temple ban may have been from God.

 

If this is God's church should we not do what God asks us to do. IE; The original Apostles didn't go to anyone but the Jews. Was God wrong to wait until after the death of Jesus to go to the non-Jews? Was God being racist?

[ttribe]

Hmmm... I wonder if I created a sock puppet on multiple Mormonism sites, started teaching the old doctrines about polygamy, Adam God, and Cain, how long it would take before the critics quoted me as an authority on Mormonism and held me up as an example of what the Saints "really believe behind closed doors"?

 

It would be an interesting experiment, but I don't have the time to waste.

 

Since you don't hold the title of "Apostle" (nor would your sockpuppet) and aren't sustained as a "prophet, seer, and revelator," I'm pretty sure this comparison is strained beyond the breaking point.

[rockpond]

If this is God's church should we not do what God asks us to do.

 

Exactly.  And we don't know if God asked us to keep black people from the priesthood and the temple.

[HappyJackWagon]

If this is God's church should we not do what God asks us to do. IE; The original Apostles didn't go to anyone but the Jews. Was God wrong to wait until after the death of Jesus to go to the non-Jews? Was God being racist?

God isn't a racist. The church has behaved in a racist way and attributed that racism to God. This is the error the church should apologize for.

[KevinG]

 the door has been left open that the priesthood & temple ban may have been from God.

 

No it hasn't.  

 

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such. - Gordon B Hinkley

 

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. - Bruce R McConkie

 

...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. - Dallin H Oaks

 

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. - Jeffrey R Holland

[KevinG]

Since you don't hold the title of "Apostle" (nor would your sockpuppet) and aren't sustained as a "prophet, seer, and revelator," I'm pretty sure this comparison is strained beyond the breaking point.

 

Nope.   I have seen people grow in notoriety and then be used as shining examples of what Mormons really think on line.  One of my favorites is when an apologist turns critic and is instantly elevated to that status.  I can name names but I'm going to be polite about it.

[ttribe]

Nope.   I have seen people grow in notoriety and then be used as shining examples of what Mormons really think on line.  One of my favorites is when an apologist turns critic and is instantly elevated to that status.  I can name names but I'm going to be polite about it.

 

Sounds like a separate phenomenon distinct from what has been discussed in this thread.

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................

.........................................since the door has been left open that the priesthood & temple ban may have been from God.

I  have seen nothing which even remotely suggests "that the priesthood & temple ban may have been from God."

Perhaps you have some selected quotes from 1978 which suggest that, or the copy of a revelation which said that, or something that Joseph Smith did which would suggest that -- oh, wait, Joseph ordained black men and argued for an end to slavery.  Gee, what happened in between times?

 

See KevinG post #447.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Robert F. Smith