KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." Seems pretty clear to me. Can we stop putting forward the false teaching that the brethren are caving to social pressure, or that they really still believe the "lineage of Cain" nonsense? 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Why did they believe it for so long though?
KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Author Posted September 30, 2015 Why did they believe it for so long though? As a people we had not outgrown our false traditions yet. That is my honest opinion. The good news is when the Official Declaration was announced it was celebrated, and the church did not schism over it. A generation later there are many mixed marriages and black priesthood holders. Here in Atlanta wards largely reflect the population in the communities around them. You see every color, shape and size in the Temple. 1
ALarson Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Update? Has the essay been changed? If so, can you post what it stated before? Thanks! 1
KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Author Posted September 30, 2015 Update? Has the essay been changed? If so, can you post what it stated before? Thanks! I don't have access to the previous copy. Someone asked the same thing on the Facebook post where I saw it was changed.
Teancum Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." Seems pretty clear to me. Can we stop putting forward the false teaching that the brethren are caving to social pressure, or that they really still believe the "lineage of Cain" nonsense? That is nice for the leaders and the Church today. Too bad they just tossed under the bus all the other Prophets, Seers and Revelators from BY to Bruce McConkie.
KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Author Posted September 30, 2015 That is nice for the leaders and the Church today. Too bad they just tossed under the bus all the other Prophets, Seers and Revelators from BY to Bruce McConkie. A swing and a miss... "Soon after the revelation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.”23" 1
Teancum Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 A swing and a miss... "Soon after the revelation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.”23" Swing and home run...McConkie tossed himself under the bus as well. I would expect a Prophet, Seer and Revelator to have better than some limited light and knowledge about something so crucial. Nice though to just say forget all the BS I taught about this over the past 30 or so years. 3
Popular Post halconero Posted September 30, 2015 Popular Post Posted September 30, 2015 Why did they believe it for so long though?Probably the same reason it took Peter ~14-17 years to hold the Council of Jerusalem after his vision in Joppa about extending baptism and membership to Gentiles, and why he proceeded to infer that gentile membership was inferior to Jewish membership by indicating their ritual uncleanliness through his abrupt departure from a dinner in Antioch: he was caught up in the traditions and doctrine into which he was born. 7
ALarson Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I don't have access to the previous copy. Someone asked the same thing on the Facebook post where I saw it was changed. Thanks and I understand. It would be interesting and helpful if someone could post what changed within the essay. So, if anyone has access to it and could post it, that would be great.
Popular Post KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Author Popular Post Posted September 30, 2015 Swing and home run...McConkie tossed himself under the bus as well. I would expect a Prophet, Seer and Revelator to have better than some limited light and knowledge about something so crucial. Nice though to just say forget all the BS I taught about this over the past 30 or so years. Your new tone is charming. And being able to correct ourselves and grow is called maturity not "throwing our old self under the bus". 8
VideoGameJunkie Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I think what Teancum meant was if they're really prophets, seers, and revelators in the one true church, they should have been right about the issue all along. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Thanks and I understand. It would be interesting and helpful if someone could post what changed within the essay. So, if anyone has access to it and could post it, that would be great. I don't see any difference. Kevin, what do you think has changed?
DJBrown Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Thanks and I understand. It would be interesting and helpful if someone could post what changed within the essay. So, if anyone has access to it and could post it, that would be great. There was no change. Not sure why the word "update" is used in this thread.
bluebell Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 There was no change. Not sure why the word "update" is used in this thread. It's probably because the church said that the essay had been revised.
KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Author Posted September 30, 2015 I dunno. I saw it on Facebook. "Everything on the internet is accurate" -Abraham Lincoln 4
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2015 Popular Post Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) Your new tone is charming. And being able to correct ourselves and grow is called maturity not "throwing our old self under the bus".What does that do to the concept of repentance? "Gee, I would like to change and improve, but gosh darn it, that would be throwing my old self under the bus, so I guess I'll just continue in the same old rut." Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 5
KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Author Posted September 30, 2015 What does that do to the concept of repentance? "Gee, I would like to change and improve, but gosh darn it, that would be throwing my old self under the bus, so I guess I'll just continue in the same old rut." So are you saying that your adult is intolerant and judgmental of your inner teen? Or is it that you were stupid and blind as a child because you didn't know what you know now as an adult?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) Deleted. Wrong thread. Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 So are you saying that your adult is intolerant and judgmental of your inner teen? Or is it that you were stupid and blind as a child because you didn't know what you know now as an adult?I dunno. Ask Teancum. He's the expert on throwing bodies under the bus.
KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Author Posted September 30, 2015 I dunno. Ask Teancum. He's the expert on throwing bodies under the bus. I've picked on his tone enough today. I have the feeling any more personal comments and I'm facing thread ban or worse.
Popular Post CV75 Posted September 30, 2015 Popular Post Posted September 30, 2015 I think what Teancum meant was if they're really prophets, seers, and revelators in the one true church, they should have been right about the issue all along.And yet here we are, still every bit the beneficiaries of the keys they exercise. 6
Ginger Snaps Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 That is nice for the leaders and the Church today. Too bad they just tossed under the bus all the other Prophets, Seers and Revelators from BY to Bruce McConkie.Well by this argument the church is darned if they do and darned if they don't. So which is it? Hang on to false tradition and folklore? Or move forward with further light and knowledge? I think we (generally, as a people) tend to forget that the restoration is ongoing. 3
canard78 Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." Seems pretty clear to me. Can we stop putting forward the false teaching that the brethren are caving to social pressure, or that they really still believe the "lineage of Cain" nonsense? Wayback machine reports this from July 2015: Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church... ..and... ...Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. I can't see a difference vs the previous version. Are you sure this is the section that was updated? 1
JAHS Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) I went back to the January 2015 version and looked at all sections of this article and don't see any obvious differences, except for the font being bigger now which my old eyes appreciate. Edited September 30, 2015 by JAHS
Recommended Posts