ttribe Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) Yes and Protestant churches had segregate churches. It was part of the times. Not right and ugly by today's standards it was the prevailing attitude. I used to use this one as a defense. I don't think it works very well. ETA: BTW, unofficially, many of them still are...but that's a discussion for a different day. Edited August 31, 2015 by ttribe 1
ALarson Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) You are missing that it obviously would not have played out that way, and people who didn't like it didn't have to go along with it. Why ignore the light and knowledge we have today? LOLThat Brigham Young was quite the practical joker. Obviously. I mean just think of all those hours the later Prophets spend on their knees pleading for the lifting of the ban. Didn't they know it would "obviously not have played out" the way it had been taught? CV, it is odd that you are laughing about this though. Edited August 31, 2015 by ALarson 3
ERayR Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 So, ERayR, will you go on record that the ban was not from God? What I will say is from what I have studied of it that it is probable that it was not. Who it was that made the error and why they did is not so clear to me. Why God let it stand for so many years is not clear either.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 What I will say is from what I have studied of it that it is probable that it was not. Who it was that made the error and why they did is not so clear to me. Why God let it stand for so many years is not clear either. Thank you. I appreciate the openness. I feel the same.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I mean just think of all those hours the later Prophets spend on their knees pleading for the lifting of the ban. Didn't they know it would "obviously not have played out" the way it had been taught? Excellent point!
ERayR Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Can I hire you as my attorney at the final judgment?. It would be nice to wash away all my transgressions by an appeal to presentism - or, I guess by then it will be called "celestism." It may be called mercy and reserved for those have mercy for those who have erred because of being raised in a societal norm.
ALarson Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 What I will say is from what I have studied of it that it is probable that it was not. Who it was that made the error and why they did is not so clear to me. Why God let it stand for so many years is not clear either.Great post. I'm out of rep points, but I tried to give you one!
ERayR Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 That Brigham Young was quite the practical joker. Obviously. I mean just think of all those hours the later Prophets spend on their knees pleading for the lifting of the ban. Didn't they know it would "obviously not have played out" the way it had been taught? CV, it is odd that you are laughing about this though. Its not clear to me what you mean here.
ERayR Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I used to use this one as a defense. I don't think it works very well. ETA: BTW, unofficially, many of them still are...but that's a discussion for a different day. I did not mean it as a defense. I was only pointing out the incongruity of the outrage at the LDS Church and the silence concerning all the others.
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I did not mean it as a defense. I was only pointing out the incongruity of the outrage at the LDS Church and the silence concerning all the others. Sometimes people are harsher with their own, expecting more. I often expect more from my brother, for instance, than the guy down the street. Also, the others aren't proclaiming latter-day revelation as their guide--at least not as boldly.
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 You are trying to make the case that the Church committed institutionally immoral acts and you can’t pull it off. Accept the disavowal and condemnation graciously and join with your brothers and sisters of all races who have “looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly.” Why can't I look to the future and also request an apology? Seems like an odd dichotomy you set up.
ERayR Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Sometimes people are harsher with their own, expecting more. I often expect more from my brother, for instance, than the guy down the street. Also, the others aren't proclaiming latter-day revelation as their guide--at least not as boldly. .And that makes it ok. You should not expect more from your brother. If you do then you are required to meet the standard you have set for them and boy do I have news for you, there will come a time when you will realize you have not done it. We are all a product of our times and if we are fortunate we will overcome at least part of it but not all of it.
ERayR Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Why can't I look to the future and also request an apology? Seems like an odd dichotomy you set up. Can I look to the future and expect apologies for wrongs from you.
CV75 Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 If I purposely broke someone's legs with a baseball bat, knowing that I would take the person to the hospital to get medical treatement, would I be able to claim, months later after both casts are off, that I didn't do anything wrong because it's all fixed now?Obviously it didn't play out that way. But if I hurt someone... then later stop hurting them... do I still not need to apologize?Again, you two are suffering from presentism in conflating an affront to your ideology and standard for political correctness with immoral acts, and now a belief and teaching with an act of violence, which is absurd. I'm still confused; I don't think this answers my question.Please rephrase your question then (?) Can I hire you as my attorney at the final judgment?. It would be nice to wash away all my transgressions by an appeal to presentism - or, I guess by then it will be called "celestism." Now that's the spirit! You'll probably need it! LOL That Brigham Young was quite the practical joker. Obviously. I mean just think of all those hours the later Prophets spend on their knees pleading for the lifting of the ban. Didn't they know it would "obviously not have played out" the way it had been taught? CV, it is odd that you are laughing about this though.They spent time getting a revelation to lift the ban for reasons other than any underlying immorality of the ideology (as if such a thing exists) or the practices in place at the time. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the process over the years. I am laughing at (not about) the ridiculous posts, not the issue.
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Can I look to the future and expect apologies for wrongs from you. I apologize all the time, so, of course.
CV75 Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Why can't I look to the future and also request an apology? Seems like an odd dichotomy you set up.Of course you can look both ways, but it isn't productive.
ttribe Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Please rephrase your question then (?) I'm not sure how to make this any more clear: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65955-mark-e-petersen-on-race/page-27#entry1209532270
Thinking Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 1. LDS prophet/apostle proclaims X in an official capacity.2. X is later admitted by the LDS Church to be in error.3. Since LDS prophet/apostle is a man, his error is excused because nobody is infallible.4. Since nobody is infallible, no apology is necessary.
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 .And that makes it ok. You should not expect more from your brother. If you do then you are required to meet the standard you have set for them and boy do I have news for you, there will come a time when you will realize you have not done it. I may have miscommunicated because I'm not sure what you mean by this. We are all a product of our times and if we are fortunate we will overcome at least part of it but not all of it. Surely that's why so many recognize the recently found communication between Lowry Nelson and the 1st Presidency of course. We read it today and see clearly that Lowry Nelson was right and the 1st presidency wrong. Both existing in the same era. It's really a shame that the Church wasn't on top of embracing truth at that time, being able to adjust and embrace truth even if it came from an average member. My hope is someday we'll be better at this. But I fear we're only worse off now, then we were in 1947.
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 1. LDS prophet/apostle proclaims X in an official capacity. 2. X is later admitted by the LDS Church to be in error. 3. Since LDS prophet/apostle is a man, his error is excused because nobody is infallible. 4. Since nobody is infallible, no apology is necessary. Awesome lesson that we all should make note of, huh? I gots no apologies to make, after all I'm just a fallible person and all. No need to apologize. We're all going to make mistakes. 1
ERayR Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I may have miscommunicated because I'm not sure what you mean by this. From your post # 560
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Again, you two are suffering from presentism in conflating an affront to your ideology and standard for political correctness with immoral acts, and now a belief and teaching with an act of violence, which is absurd. Please rephrase your question then (?) Now that's the spirit! You'll probably need it! LOL They spent time getting a revelation to lift the ban for reasons other than any underlying immorality of the ideology (as if such a thing exists) or the practices in place at the time. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the process over the years. I am laughing at (not about) the ridiculous posts, not the issue.The mere fact that you and others don't consider the racism of the ban and subsequent teachings an immoral act is precisely why the church needs to apologize and thus signal that YES, this was an immoral act. For some reason you seem to think immoral must be physically violent. Not sure why you think that. I find it ironic that you're accusing me of presentism when you're the one claiming it's no big deal because now we know the ban was eventually lifted. This is a crazy world. 2
ALarson Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Its not clear to me what you mean here.I was just quoting CV75, he stated this about the ban (post #541):You are missing that it obviously would not have played out that way...
ERayR Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Awesome lesson that we all should make note of, huh? I gots no apologies to make, after all I'm just a fallible person and all. No need to apologize. We're all going to make mistakes. How about I don't apologize for you and you don't apologize for me?
Russell C McGregor Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 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. So you assent to the Church's definitive, authoritative position that "God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife," do you? 2
Recommended Posts