thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 You're kind of off the rails here. Do we need to have a discussion about how God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate personages? I sure hope not. No we don't. If it was clearly from God I imagine there must be a revelation, right? CFR for how we know the ban was clearly from God. I know what the LDS teach. I taught the HP Group for many years.They are separate personages, never said they weren't. Jesus is clearly God, just not God the Father. The revelation if you will is Jesus refusing go to any but the Jews during his mortal ministry. It took a revelation from God to Peter to changer it. It is all right there in your Bible.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 If you don't see a clear statement in the quotes I provided I don't know what else can be said. No, I don't see a clear statement. And if it's there, we ought to state it clearly in the gospel topic essay and teach it to members. Another example: I know that Scott Lloyd has stated on there before the we don't know whether or not the ban was from God so it is incorrect to state definitively that it was not. My Bishop very clearly taught me that the "disavowal" was done for political reasons and that he knows from a GA source that the ban was from God. If President Hinckley apologized as a prophet of the Church, let's get his statement and publish it. Let's make this clear to members and the world that the ban was a mistake.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 If you don't see a clear statement in the quotes I provided I don't know what else can be said. This reminds me so much of an argument between husband and wife where one won't accept the admission of the other because it wasn't worded correctly for them. As several of my black friends in and out of the church have said, in one way or another "you whites need to get over this and move on!" Let's also be clear of the implication of your conclusion that the ban was not of God: Prophets, seers, and apostles can teach and declare doctrine that is incorrect. They can do so for over a century. And then a newer prophet can disavow that doctrine, declare it to not be from God. No apology necessary for those injured in the process and no clear statement from the prophet as to the change in doctrine is required.
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I don't know for sure, but I would imagine many members who haven't read the recent essay still believe the ban came from God. Members believe anything that was put in place by one of their Prophets (past or present) came from God. I also believe that members don't really dwell much on the ban though. I know that it's hardly even on my kid's radar as it was lifted long before they were even born. They would have had to miss more than the essay. President Hinkley's statements were widely circulated and part of General Conference. They were spoken in context of the lifting of the ban. This adds credence to my theory that people who are surprised by church history are often (not always) insulated from or insulating themselves from resources that are available.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) Here is an apology by a Prophet, albeit not a general conference apology: http://www.blacklds.org/840/pastor-to-pastor-president-hinckleys-apology-for-racism-in-the-churchIt's great that Pres. Hinkley formally apologized to a pastor for racism and slavery even though we don't have record of his words. I'd never heard that story. It would be great to see a public apology. If the prophet apologized personally, surely there wouldn't be anything wrong with apologizing publicly. Edited August 31, 2015 by HappyJackWagon 1
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Here is an apology by a Prophet, albeit not a general conference apology: http://www.blacklds.org/840/pastor-to-pastor-president-hinckleys-apology-for-racism-in-the-church The author says that Pres Hinckely "offered an apology". We don't know what he said, what he apologized for, nor was it published to the church. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I know what the LDS teach. I taught the HP Group for many years.They are separate personages, never said they weren't. Jesus is clearly God, just not God the Father. The revelation if you will is Jesus refusing go to any but the Jews during his mortal ministry. It took a revelation from God to Peter to changer it. It is all right there in your Bible.That doesn't answer the CFR.The CFR was for a revelation instituting the priesthood ban and you come back with the biblical account of Christ only teaching to the jews? Sounds like you need to retract your position unless you can actually provide a reference for a revelation instituting the priesthood and temple ban.
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Let's also be clear of the implication of your conclusion that the ban was not of God: Prophets, seers, and apostles can teach and declare doctrine that is incorrect. They can do so for over a century. And then a newer prophet can disavow that doctrine, declare it to not be from God. No apology necessary for those injured in the process and no clear statement from the prophet as to the change in doctrine is required. Yes. Very clearly yes. We have a fullness of what God has revealed, not a fullness of everything God knows. And the race practices are not, and were never doctrinal. As Elder Holland says, we failed spectacularly in some cases trying to explain away something that was never doctrinal. There are no scriptures, no D&C chapters, no doctrines... that said we should deny blacks the priesthood. Only bad attempts to justify it. I've linked more than enough resources that you can research that for yourself. Don't fall prey to believing everything we ever taught was doctrine, or every practice we do today is doctrine. 1
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) It's great that Pres. Hinkley formally apologized to a pastor for racism and slavery even though we don't have record of his words. I'd never heard that story. It would be great to see a public apology. If the prophet apologized personally, surely there shouldn't be something wrong with apologizing publicly. Why don't you apologize publicly for the whole church? I myself tell everyone who asks me that we were wrong (agreeing with Apostles and Prophets quoted above). But the good news is we eagerly accepted the revelation correcting it. I stop short of apologizing for Brigham because I'm not him. Or better yet you can help Skeptical write the letter to the Brethren telling them exactly what the apology should say. I'm sure they will love that. Edited August 31, 2015 by KevinG 1
ALarson Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 They would have had to miss more than the essay. President Hinkley's statements were widely circulated and part of General Conference. They were spoken in context of the lifting of the ban.Did President Hinckley state that the ban originated with Brigham Young and did not come from God?
ttribe Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Yes. Very clearly yes. We have a fullness of what God has revealed, not a fullness of everything God knows. And the race practices are not, and were never doctrinal. As Elder Holland says, we failed spectacularly in some cases trying to explain away something that was never doctrinal. There are no scriptures, no D&C chapters, no doctrines... that said we should deny blacks the priesthood. Only bad attempts to justify it. I've linked more than enough resources that you can research that for yourself. Don't fall prey to believing everything we ever taught was doctrine, or every practice we do today is doctrine. You do recall that the First Presidency used the term "doctrine" more than once in letters discussing the ban, right? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 They would have had to miss more than the essay. President Hinkley's statements were widely circulated and part of General Conference. They were spoken in context of the lifting of the ban. This adds credence to my theory that people who are surprised by church history are often (not always) insulated from or insulating themselves from resources that are available. CFR- I'd love to see this but I'm confused. You previously said it wasn't part of conference and now you say it was. Please provide the reference.
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Did President Hinckley state that the ban originated with Brigham Young and did not come from God? Elder McConkie, Elder Oaks and Elder Holland did. I don't know about Hinkley- I don't think he ever said it did come from God. Certainly by the time he was President of the Church he disavowed it, and spoke strongly against discrimination.
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 You do recall that the First Presidency used the term "doctrine" more than once in letters discussing the ban, right? Show me the quotes please. I've heard lots of people use the word Doctrine when it wasn't appropriate. Even presidents. YOu do know the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine right?
ALarson Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) Elder McConkie, Elder Oaks and Elder Holland did. I don't know about Hinkley- I don't think he ever said it did come from God. Certainly by the time he was President of the Church he disavowed it, and spoke strongly against discrimination.Well, you said that members should have known the ban didn't come from God if they'd heard President Hinckley's "widely circulated" statements in GC. Can you provide those statements? Edited August 31, 2015 by ALarson
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) Why don't you apologize publicly for the whole church? I myself tell everyone who asks me that we were wrong (agreeing with Apostles and Prophets quoted above). But the good news is we eagerly accepted the revelation correcting it. I stop short of apologizing for Brigham because I'm not him. Or better yet you can help Skeptical write the letter to the Brethren telling them exactly what the apology should say. I'm sure they will love that.What are you talking about? I'd love to apologize for the church but I don't have authority to do that. I don't represent the church. The prophet does. That's why the prophet should publicly apologize for the institutional racism that occurred. ETA- Reminder of my CFR Edited August 31, 2015 by HappyJackWagon
ttribe Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Show me the quotes please. I've heard lots of people use the word Doctrine when it wasn't appropriate. Even presidents. YOu do know the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine right? [sigh] http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements http://www.mormonstudies.net/html/official/fp_letter_nelson_1947.html Regarding the Journal of Discourses, please don't talk to me like I'm stupid. 1
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 CFR- I'd love to see this but I'm confused. You previously said it wasn't part of conference and now you say it was. Please provide the reference. Already quoted but here it is again. Remind me to laugh the next time someone writes that the Church "hides things". https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 You are the only person I have dealt with who thinks that it wasn't an error. Where are all those "many members" you speak of?I'm surpised to hear you say this. We've had numerous discussions about the essay where this very question has been debated. Most recently, as I recall here:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65353-bishop-dismisses-sunday-school-teacher-for-using-essay In this thread, Scott Lloyd made the following comment (which you thought worthy of a rep point):http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65353-bishop-dismisses-sunday-school-teacher-for-using-essay/page-9#entry1209493348This is a point that had occurred to me as well. From time to time, I see people citing the essays to claim that the Church has admitted that the pre-1978 priesthood restriction was wrong. The Church has done no such thing, and the essays don't say that.And a couple posts down: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65353-bishop-dismisses-sunday-school-teacher-for-using-essay/page-9#entry1209493365It doesn't even hint at such a thing. In the same thread Rongo also expressed:But it also significantly doesn't disavow the ban itself. This essay wisely leaves room for members to conclude that the ban wasn't inspired and was completely due to social milieu reasons, if they want to, or that it *was* inspired, if they want to. The essay does disavow unstated past rationales given for the ban, but not the ban itself. Room is left for people to still believe that it was God's will. Going back further you can read a whole thread with a poll attached (where 62% of respondents thought the ban was not disavowed) here:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62412-how-do-you-read-the-race-statement/ 1
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Regarding the Journal of Discourses, please don't talk to me like I'm stupid. So using the same tone on you that you used on me is offensive? Physician heal thyself. 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) It feels like you're intentionally trying to agitate here so this is my last response to you until you provide the CFR I requested. Please understand there is a vast difference between Christ and any man; even a prophet. Therefore Christ can choose to go to or not go to any group of people he chooses. He may have his reasons. That is different than saying a prophet can behave in a racist way and then have generations of prophets give invalid reasons for the racist policy. Please tell me you can see the difference. Believe me if I wanted to agitate I know vastly better ways to do it. Never said there wasn't. My hope is that someday I will be like Christ, as is promised in the Bible, and other distinctly LDS Scripture. But that day probably isn't going to be today. If Christ can choose to not do something,. is it possible that he could also tell his Apostles not to do the same? He clearly does so in the Bible.We don't know the reasons for his ban, and I choose not to speculate on what it could be, other that it was a trial, for me to reconcile. I joined the Church in 1971. Seven long years before that ban was thankfully lifted. BTW WE still have a Ban on women holding the Priesthood. It will take a revelation from God to change it. We've repudiated all the reasons given thus far. If Peter bar Zebedee can be a racist, so can Mark E. Peterson, and both can still be prophets/apostles of God. PS; Here is what the Bible says.SEE Matthew 15:24 KJVBut he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Edited August 31, 2015 by thesometimesaint
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 When Elder Oaks says we were "wrong", and Elder Holland says we were "wrong or spectacularly wrong", I believe them. When President Hinkley says racist attitudes are not worthy of Priesthood holders I believe him. What I see here is critics and Saints who want to justify their own bigotry cherry picking comments and not being up to speed with what General Authorities have taught in public, and even General Conference. Now I'm going to take flak from both sides. Time to go get lunch. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 They would have had to miss more than the essay. President Hinkley's statements were widely circulated and part of General Conference. They were spoken in context of the lifting of the ban. This adds credence to my theory that people who are surprised by church history are often (not always) insulated from or insulating themselves from resources that are available. If the church has disavowed the ban itself, they have done a really crappy job communicating it. If they haven't reached the Scott Lloyd's of the church, something is wrong. 1
CV75 Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 So wouldn't that be reason for an apology or at least a clear statement from the Prophet that the ban was a mistake? (Not the REASONS for the ban, but the ban itself.)To my way of thinking, ecclesiastical apologies would express regret and culpability for moral offenses. Past theories and racism are not exactly moral offenses.
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 [sigh] http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements http://www.mormonstudies.net/html/official/fp_letter_nelson_1947.html Regarding the Journal of Discourses, please don't talk to me like I'm stupid. Thanks- I have seen the quotes you share here. So do you believe they override what more recent living prophets and apostles have said about the priesthood? We are not subject to the teachings of dead prophets not canonized, and we believe in receiving additional light and knowledge as a church and as individuals. I have no problem thinking those might have been well meant, but erroneous "doctrines". Of course I'm not a big fan of prophetic inerrancy (another false folk doctrine) and I do like confirming what church authorities say with my own prayer and personal revelation. Something many Saints could be better at.
Recommended Posts