Update Of The Essay Of Race And The Lds Church

[thesometimesaint]

That would be worthwhile...  however in criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it is much more exciting to pick the exceptions to the volumes of history and revelation that have worked well, and use them as examples of why we should throw our babies out with the bathwater.

 

Too true.

[Robert F. Smith]

In my experience whenever someone argues presentism they are losing the argument. Prophets claim to speak to God. Gid should be able to set them straight regardless of the time or era. As I have noted you and others, if polygamy was important enough for God to send and angel with a flaming sword he was powerful enough to to correct the priesthood ban error. It didn't need 130 years to fix.

Yeah, if you believe that God is a micromanager, that makes sense.  But that would obviate the whole Plan of Salvation.  We are supposed to be doing this largely on our own.  If Daddy constantly interferes, we learn nothing through personal experience.

 

One might just as well question why the Jews were not able to return to Jerusalem in triumph for nearly two millennia.  How come God did not bring them back sooner.  Instead of whining about that delay, Joseph sent his trusty apostle Orson Hyde to dedicate Palestine to the Gathering of the Jews -- which Orson formally did in 1841 on Mount Olivet.  And how come God did not restore his true Church for nearly two millennia?  Maybe He was waiting for things to be "just right" for that turn of events.  Are humans expected to take the initiative?  Should a young teenager first go out into a grove and pray about which Church is true?  Doesn't every revelation begin with a question?

Edited October 6, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I am happy to criticize them all. Samuel, Elisha, the lavish chapel while beautiful were built on the backs of the poor and benefited the powerful religious kleptocrats. Abraham to though a God did not tell him to do this for exaltation.

I just don't see or feel the gusto with which you condemn the LDS guys, Teancum.  Couldn't you up the volume a bit?  Just spread it around a little better . . . then I'll perceive that you really are trying to be fair.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

..............................My concern is a prophetic process that is unreliable: how could a series of prophets be so wrong about an entire race of people and how do we know that the current prophets are right, and how can the current prophets denounce teachings of past prophets without hurting their own credibility? The typical response "we can know by the spirit." I call BS...that introduces another set of problematic implications.

If you are interested in the perennial problem of epistemology, there are plenty of books, articles, and college courses which include that in the curriculum, and it may all be hooey to you and a lot of other people, but it is a serious question to ask "How do we know anything?"  How do we know anything for certain?  Is that even possible?

 

Well, Smiley, can you come up with a reliable method for determining the answers to the questions you pose?  Or does that simply inject "another set of problematic implications"?  Are you offering us just another mode of infinite regress?

Edited October 6, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Russell C McGregor]

If you are interested in the perennial problem of epistemology, there are plenty of books, articles, and college courses which include that in the curriculum, and it may all be hooey to you and a lot of other people, but it is a serious question to ask "How do we know anything?"  How do we know anything for certain?  Is that even possible?

 

Well, Smiley, can you come up with a reliable method for determining the answers to the questions you pose?  Or does that simply inject "another set of problematic implications"?  Are you offering us just another mode of infinite regress?

Or more likely, an attempt to undermine the teaching authority of the leaders of the Church.

I think TSS has got it right.

[Teancum]

I just don't see or feel the gusto with which you condemn the LDS guys, Teancum.  Couldn't you up the volume a bit?  Just spread it around a little better . . . then I'll perceive that you really are trying to be fair.

Cute Robert

But this is a Mormon message board Robert. Do you want to discuss medieval Cathlocism and how it built its lovely cathedrals on the backs of th poor on a Mormon message board?

[SmileyMcGee]

If you are interested in the perennial problem of epistemology, there are plenty of books, articles, and college courses which include that in the curriculum, and it may all be hooey to you and a lot of other people, but it is a serious question to ask "How do we know anything?"  How do we know anything for certain?  Is that even possible?

 

Well, Smiley, can you come up with a reliable method for determining the answers to the questions you pose?  Or does that simply inject "another set of problematic implications"?  Are you offering us just another mode of infinite regress?

Those are good questions. I don't know how we know anything and, at the end of the day, I am most comfortable asserting my ignorance and the ignorance of others, whether they realize their ignorance or pretend to know something that they can't know. I don't blame people for wanting to find answers or even holding certain beliefs to have some feeling of assurance. In fact, I'm rather envious of those that have convinced themselves. You may not think this from my posts, but there are times, often, when I would give anything to have that assurance again. I just have trouble with a lot of the assumptions that are required to believe. 

[SmileyMcGee]

Of course there is false doctrine, or at least continuing to teaching a false doctrine after correction. In regards to the issue of race. We have ample examples of prophets saying things that were later determined to be false. We also Scriptures that say much the same thing.

 

We're not Sola Scriptura believers. We believe in continuing revelation. I don't see how it could be any other way for a LDS.

 

Common Consent. D&C 26

SEE https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/11-law-common-consent-dc-26

 

I can't speak for anyone but myself. However reading our Scriptures should give even the most tentative of Saints a good understanding of what they claim they believe. I always find some things I disagree with, along side of lots of things I agree with at General Conference. If I have a disagreement about it I ponder, study, and pray about it. So far it has all worked out for me. 

 

I'm not sure as any disclaimer would/should be advisable. Take what is good and discard the rest.

 

I understand what you're saying, I just don't see it being practiced by the saints. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Cute Robert

But this is a Mormon message board Robert. Do you want to discuss medieval Cathlocism and how it built its lovely cathedrals on the backs of th poor on a Mormon message board?

As they say at BYU, "The world is our campus."  A narrow and superficial version of Mormonism might ignore that, but I prefer to take the issues in real context -- with a full sense of perspective and history.  Otherwise we end up with a major distortion of reality.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Those are good questions. I don't know how we know anything and, at the end of the day, I am most comfortable asserting my ignorance and the ignorance of others, whether they realize their ignorance or pretend to know something that they can't know. I don't blame people for wanting to find answers or even holding certain beliefs to have some feeling of assurance. In fact, I'm rather envious of those that have convinced themselves. You may not think this from my posts, but there are times, often, when I would give anything to have that assurance again. I just have trouble with a lot of the assumptions that are required to believe. 

Sounds like you are suffering from existentialist syndrome, from which there is no exit, and in which irrational man is doomed to angst and uncertainty forever.

 

Many existentialists began as Marxists (nothing wrong with that), and ended by asserting that religion is the opiate of the people.  That's a good deal of certainty for those who assert that there can be no certainty.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

Cute Robert

But this is a Mormon message board Robert. Do you want to discuss medieval Cathlocism and how it built its lovely cathedrals on the backs of th poor on a Mormon message board?

 

Your exclusivity is touching but irrelevant.

[SmileyMcGee]

Sounds like you are suffering from existentialist syndrome, from which there is no exit, and in which irrational man is doomed to angst and uncertainty forever.

 

Many existentialists began as Marxists (nothing wrong with that), and ended by asserting that religion is the opiate of the people.  That's a good deal of certainty for those who assert that there can be no certainty.

Those are good thoughts. 

[KevinG]

I understand what you're saying, I just don't see it being practiced by the saints. 

 

Hang out with different Saints.  

[SmileyMcGee]

Hang out with different Saints.  

Alas, I am a prisoner of ward boundaries.

[Teancum]

Your exclusivity is touching but irrelevant.

I have no idea wag your point is.

[theplains]

The good news is when the Official Declaration was announced it was celebrated ...

 

Can you provide some references in a General Conference talk or Ensign magazine that

speak of this celebration?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[theplains]

Regarding the part of the article which says the following: 

 

"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African 

descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood ... 

 

Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted 

blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. 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."

 

Was the devil somehow able to influence Brigham Young and subsequent LDS Church

leaders into having them believe in false theories and create practices based

on them?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

Was the devil somehow able to influence Brigham Young and subsequent LDS Church

leaders into having them believe in false theories and create practices based

on them?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Not enough to turn them into anti-Mormons.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I know a few black mormons and none of them like Brigham Young. They only care about modern prophets and apostles.

[thesometimesaint]

Brigham Young was autocratic, and opinionated by our sensibilities. He also did not suffer fools lightly. OTOH he was exactly what the Church needed to get it across the American plains safely and established in Deseret. 

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Regarding the part of the article which says the following: 

 

"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African 

descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood ... 

 

Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted 

blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. 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."

 

Was the devil somehow able to influence Brigham Young and subsequent LDS Church

leaders into having them believe in false theories and create practices based

on them?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

No, Jim.  Humans don't need the Devil to influence them.  They have an indomitable, free will to do good or evil -- as they choose.  Many get caught up in their own frail prejudices or biases, which can then be extended even further by folklore.  Human culture is regularly accompanied by a generous helping of nonsense.  Sometimes the Zeitgeist is just too inviting.  At other times we are gloriously surprised by greatness of soul in certain individuals, no doubt called to that role before the foundation of the world.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[hydrocesar]

In Joseph Smith's time black Americans were treated harshly by society. So the church was nice to them and gave the priesthood to the men. When the society became harsh to the church like polygamy issues, they became nicer to the black people by swaying them away from becoming member of an evil church and having a false priesthood. Just my opinion. 

[Calm]

Have you studied the history much? Iwould suggest Paul Reeve and Russell Stevenson's books.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Calm

[theplains]

No, Jim.  Humans don't need the Devil to influence them.  They have an indomitable, free will to do good or evil -- as they choose.  Many get caught up in their own frail prejudices or biases, which can then be extended even further by folklore.

 

I can understand your point.

 

I think this question can be applied to leaders of any religious faith but I change the context

to Mormonism since we are on this forum ... if a present day LDS Apostle teaches something

that the future LDS Church deems to be false and deceiving people if those teachings were

converted into actions, then how can one determine if any of the past false teachings and

practices were really inspired by Satan or not?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[KevinG]

Can you provide some references in a General Conference talk or Ensign magazine that

speak of this celebration?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Celebrated and celebration are two different terms.  However, to answer your CFR I present the words of President Hinckley.

 

So it was on that memorable June 1, 1978. We left that meeting subdued and reverent and joyful.

---

Those absent were talked with by long-distance telephone. There was unity and there was rejoicing on the part of each. 

---

I need not tell you of the electric effect that was felt both within the Church and without. There was much weeping, with tears of gratitude not only on the part of those who previously had been denied the priesthood and who became the immediate beneficiaries of this announcement, but also by men and women of the Church across the world who had felt as we had felt concerning this matter.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/10/priesthood-restoration?lang=eng