Was the Priesthood-temple ban from man or God?

[cacheman]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

• Official Declaration 2. Avoid attaching man-made reasons to God’s revelations

  “In a 1988 interview on the tenth anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, [Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] explained [his] attitude toward attempts to supply mortal reasons for divine revelation:

  “‘If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in 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.’

  “When asked if [he] was even referring to reasons given by General Authorities, [he] replied:

  “‘I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon … by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking. … Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies’ [“Apostles Talk about Reasons for Lifting Ban,” Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, June 5, 1988, 21 (AP)]” (Dallin H. Oaks, Life’s Lessons Learned [2011], 68–69).

Bit of a stretch to say he attributed to priesthood ban to a command from God.  But I see where you might think that.
 

He talks about the many commands from the Lord in which reasons aren't given.  Then speaking specifically of the priesthood ban, he says that he had faith in the command (presumably by the Lord), but not faith in the reasons.  I'm curious to your interpretation of it...

Full disclosure: My beliefs differ from LDS beliefs, and I believe that the ban came from men. I would welcome any interpretation that would allow one to read this section and not see it as affirming that the ban was the commanded by the Lord.

[why me]

What seems to be lacking in all this is the historical context. There was quite a sizable section of the missouri population who did not appreciate that mormons were inviting 'negroes and mulattos' into their state. In fact, a manifesto was written called: The Manifesto of the Mob which directly criticized the mormons over the issue of their stance on Blacks:

Missourians Write Mob Manifesto The local Missourians do not like the Phelps editorial and respond with The Manifesto of the Mob. This manifesto calls for the “removal” of the Mormons. Among other things it says: “In a late number of the Star, published in Independence by the leaders of the sect, there is an article inviting free Negroes and mulattoes from other states to become “Mormons,” and remove and settle among us. This exhibits them in still more odious colors. It manifests a desire on the part of their society, to inflict on our society an injury that they know would be to us entirely insupportable, and one of the surest means of driving us from the country; for it would require none of the supernatural gifts that they pretend to, to see that the introduction of such a caste among us would corrupt our blacks, and instigate them to bloodshed.””…we believe it a duty we owe to ourselves, our wives, and children, to the cause of public morals, to remove them from among us, as we are not prepared to give up our pleasant places and goodly possessions to them or to receive into the bosom of our families, as fit companions for wives and daughters, the degraded and corrupted free Negroes and mulattos that are now invited to settle among us.””…we agree to use such means as may be sufficient to remove them, and to that and we each pledge to each other are bodily powers, our lives, fortunes and sacred honors.” http://www.blacklds.org/history To understand the problem one must read this proclamation by Phelps and then the reaction of Jackson County with their Manifesto of the Mob statement: http://www.blacklds.org/fpoc http://www.blacklds.org/mob Then we must understand the fear when the Black brother later took upon it himself to be polygamous and marry himself to four white women. And the reaction of the US govenment to mormons and their attitudes toward Blacks: It is impossible to understand that trajectory without first understanding the ways in which white Mormons themselves were racialized. The prevailing American fear of interracial mixing played a significant role in that process, especially as outsiders projected their own alarm over race mixing onto Mormons. At Kirtland, outsiders suggested that Black Pete received revelations to marry white women. In Missouri settlers argued that Mormons were inviting free black converts to that state, not only to incite a slave rebellion but to steal white women. After the Mormons openly announced the practice of polygamy in 1852, the charge of interracial mixing took on a life of its own. One Army doctor filed a report with the United States Senate in which he claimed polygamy was giving rise to a degenerate "race." Political cartoons depicted interracial polygamous families, sometimes with black, Asian, and Native American wives mixed in among the white. In a variety of ways outsiders constructed Mormons as racially suspect, facilitators of interracial mixing and therefore of racial contamination. As one news account put it, "the days of the white race are numbered in this country." At the crux of this fearful deterioration was the "American of the future," "a black Mormon." Against such a charged national racial backdrop, Mormons responded with an effort to claim whiteness for themselves. In 1852, Brigham Young drew upon the curses of Cain, Ham, and Canaan, derived from long standing Judeo-Christian Biblical exegeses, to bar black men from the priesthood. Leaders later expanded the policy to include temple worship for black men and women, except for proxy baptisms for their deceased ancestors. In 1908, leaders cemented those policies in place when historical forgetfulness trumped verifiable evidence to misremember that the bans had always been there, divine mandates that only God could rescind. https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/wrong-side-white-w-paul-reeve
	”
.

Edited February 6, 2016 by why me

[why me]

What is amazing about this thread and other threads about blacks and the priesthood is the historical context and just how revolutionary the lds church was toward blacks becoming members and the institutional prejudice that existed in the United States during slavery. The mormons seemed to react because they again felt that they were in danger of extinctioin unless something was drastically changed in regard to their stance on blacks and brigham reacted accordingly.

Unfortunately, the historical context is buried beneath labeling brigham and other members at that time as racist. When just maybe the reaction was due to fear based on past persecutions and the ability for survival as a church.

Edited February 6, 2016 by why me

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, cacheman said:

I haven't read the whole thread, so this might have already been discussed...but I'm curious to know if those who feel the ban came from man are concerned that the church still teaches seminary students that the ban was a commandment from the Lord.  How do you interpret that?

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014?lang=eng

Lesson 157

I also don't see it in context of the rest of manual statements. (I lean toward man-mad, but responded I don't know)

From what I see it states several times in the lesson that they don't know about it's commencement.

They state that others had promptings to wait or it wasn't the time just yet (I'm paraphrasing here).

The only thing directly called a revelation is the removal of the ban and they mentioned that prophets felt like it could only be removed by revelation because it had been around for over a century by then. It doesn't say they needed revelation in order to remove a command from the Lord.

So to me the section in question is ambivalent to what it's pointing to. It could be inferred they way you read it, but it also could refer to the process of it's removal and the sense to wait that was mentioned a couple of times. 

 

With luv,

BD

[rongo]

7 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So you think the Book of Mormon says the Lamanites were black Africans?

 

No, not black Africans. But with a significantly darker skin than the Nephites.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, why me said:

What is amazing about this thread and other threads about blacks and the priesthood is the historical context and just how revolutionary the lds church was toward blacks becoming members and the institutional prejudice that existed in the United States during slavery. The mormons seemed to react because they again felt that they were in danger of extinctioin unless something was drastically changed in regard to their stance on blacks and brigham reacted accordingly.

I think the historical context shows that Brigham Young formally instituted the Priesthood ban in 1852.

Long after the saints were far from the madding throng and safely ensconced in the Rocky Mountains.

This was the same year plural marriage was formally announced, as well.

If we are looking for the cause for the institution of the ban, we must look somewhere else than the Mormons' fear of extinction.

[juliann]

On 2/4/2016 at 10:33 PM, cinepro said:

This mystifies me.  I can only ask you the same thing I've asked others who suggest this isn't describing a literal change in skin color.  Please outline any theory that you feel makes sense for these verses:

 

Quote

 

 6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

 7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

 8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

Alma 3

 

 

Specifically, in verse 6, if "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" isn't referring to their actual dermis, what is it referring to? 

Now, take whatever explanation you suggest and test it against verse 8, in which we are told that this "dark skin" was done so that the "seed" (i.e. descendants) of Laman and Lemuel could be "distinguished" from the descendants of the Nephites and they wouldn't mix.

If you can offer any alternate theory that fits that description, I'll be impressed.  So far no one has been able to do it (and that includes Nibley).

I see no reason to not use dark in the same way biblical texts do. I don't think it can be anymore plain than the story of Job's skin turning black. Other examples usually are in tandem with tragedy, sorrow, etc. And of course dark/black vs white is ubiquitous. I can see a case for making this racial if one believes the BOM to be a 19th century construction but not if it is considered to be an ancient text.  Those who support the former insist that the local culture and beliefs be factored in always yet it seems as if the same rules aren't allowed for those who believe it to be ancient. 

My basic objection to a literal black skin is that it is utterly meaningless unless all skin was made the same color. No deviations ever, it is a curse from God after all. If not, someone could "pass." And again, the double standard. Nobody in their right mind would consider any skin in the Americas to be black. So next to a demand that evidence based DNA be the standard of proof, a good thing...we see the double standard demand from critics that a population who have never had black skin now have to have  black skin with no evidence of any kind beyond a few words in a book.

The only problematic verse I see is the "all are alike unto God..." which embraces racial distinction in a very odd manner if we use black as a racial marker. It simply doesn't fit that way. Why only black? When did darker skinned desert dwellers become "white?" What about other ethnic groups and skin tones? Doesn't God love them?  I think that it is using the same understanding of the term and black and white that refers to ones spiritual state as it does in the Bible. And God is saying that all people are alike to him, no matter what category they have been placed in. The point isn't to make a really out of place comment about Africans, it is to assure all that they are equally valued regardless of gender, geneaology,or spiritual state and all have an open invitation to come to God.

[why me]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I think the historical context shows that Brigham Young formally instituted the Priesthood ban in 1852.

Long after the saints were far from the madding throng and safely ensconced in the Rocky Mountains.

This was the same year plural marriage was formally announced, as well.

If we are looking for the cause for the institution of the ban, we must look somewhere else than the Mormons' fear of extinction.

However, in 1852, there was pressure on the lds for their wonderful treatment of blacks:

It is impossible to understand that trajectory without first understanding the ways in which white Mormons themselves were racialized. The prevailing American fear of interracial mixing played a significant role in that process, especially as outsiders projected their own alarm over race mixing onto Mormons. At Kirtland, outsiders suggested that Black Pete received revelations to marry white women. In Missouri settlers argued that Mormons were inviting free black converts to that state, not only to incite a slave rebellion but to steal white women.

After the Mormons openly announced the practice of polygamy in 1852, the charge of interracial mixing took on a life of its own. One Army doctor filed a report with the United States Senate in which he claimed polygamy was giving rise to a degenerate "race." Political cartoons depicted interracial polygamous families, sometimes with black, Asian, and Native American wives mixed in among the white. In a variety of ways outsiders constructed Mormons as racially suspect, facilitators of interracial mixing and therefore of racial contamination. As one news account put it, "the days of the white race are numbered in this country." At the crux of this fearful deterioration was the "American of the future," "a black Mormon."

Against such a charged national racial backdrop, Mormons responded with an effort to claim whiteness for themselves. In 1852, Brigham Young drew upon the curses of Cain, Ham, and Canaan, derived from long standing Judeo-Christian Biblical exegeses, to bar black men from the priesthood. Leaders later expanded the policy to include temple worship for black men and women, except for proxy baptisms for their deceased ancestors. In 1908, leaders cemented those policies in place when historical forgetfulness trumped verifiable evidence to misremember that the bans had always been there, divine mandates that only God could rescind.

https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/wrong-side-white-w-paul-reeve

This was the problem. I think that BY was just tired of all the crap that the mormons have already been through. He was burnt out by persecution and negativity. Thus, the ban. And I tend to believe that the lds church survived because of it. We also need to remember that blacks were not barred from membership,

The US has always been an intolerant country. No matter who came over, the Irish, the Poles, the Italians etc, all have been through the ringer. But back in BYs time and in Joseph's time, such intolerance was the norm. One needed to be WASP to get respect. And racialism was the philosophy of the time.

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by why me

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

 

From an abundance of sources, let's try the following:

 

This comes from a rather famous talk by Ezra Taft Benson.  He was president of the Quorum of the Twelve when he gave it.  You may have heard of it.  It is called The 14 Fundamentals of Following the Prophet.

It was recycled just last year in the official Church manual for Priesthood and Relief Society.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng

The ellipses are in the manual.

So you claim "an abundance of sources" -- but you're only able to find one.

And, by an extraordinary coincidence, it's one that anti-Mormons love to cherry-pick.

Funny, that.

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Who approves these manuals for use in the Church?

That would be the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

It is clear from this example alone that my assertions are correct.  Church leaders claim doctrinally infallibility for themselves and encourage members to do the same.

It's clear that "this example alone" is the only one you could think of.

Unfortunately, it doesn't claim what you assert that it claims.

But of course, you knew that.

You're just falsely accusing the brethren, as you habitually do.

To say that the prophet speaks for the Lord is not to assert that the prophet never says anything except when he is speaking for the Lord.

But again, of course, you knew that. Perfectly well.

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The question now becomes why you ask for references when you know perfectly well what I say is true?

Is it possible you are the one "not discussing things in good faith"?

A fine unscrupulous lawyer trick: try to deflect attention from your own bad faith by going on the attack.

And you do it with such practiced skill.

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I am not anti-Mormon.

I am pro-Truth.

Standard anti-Mormon slogan.

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

• Official Declaration 2. Avoid attaching man-made reasons to God’s revelations

  “In a 1988 interview on the tenth anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, [Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] explained [his] attitude toward attempts to supply mortal reasons for divine revelation:

  “‘If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in 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.’

  “When asked if [he] was even referring to reasons given by General Authorities, [he] replied:

  “‘I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon … by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking. … Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies’ [“Apostles Talk about Reasons for Lifting Ban,” Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, June 5, 1988, 21 (AP)]” (Dallin H. Oaks, Life’s Lessons Learned [2011], 68–69).

Bit of a stretch to say he attributed to priesthood ban to a command from God.  But I see where you might think that.
 

What is particularly interesting is that he said that the "reasons given by general authorities" were man-made, and not revelations.

So Elder Oaks is directly contradicting any claim of "infallibility" for those general authorities.

So who should we believe? An anti-Mormon who is far too much of an independent thinker to be restricted by anything as irrelevant as mere facts, or our lying eyes?

 

[Senator]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

• Official Declaration 2. Avoid attaching man-made reasons to God’s revelations

  “In a 1988 interview on the tenth anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, [Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] explained [his] attitude toward attempts to supply mortal reasons for divine revelation:

  “‘If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in 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.’

  “When asked if [he] was even referring to reasons given by General Authorities, [he] replied:

  “‘I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon … by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking. … Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies’ [“Apostles Talk about Reasons for Lifting Ban,” Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, June 5, 1988, 21 (AP)]” (Dallin H. Oaks, Life’s Lessons Learned [2011], 68–69).

Bit of a stretch to say he attributed to priesthood ban to a command from God.  But I see where you might think that.
 

I'm not seeing much of a stretch at all.

Wow, there's quite a bit in that quote that doesn't sit well with me.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Senator

[Senator]

1 minute ago, Senator said:

deleted

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by Senator

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, Senator said:

I'm not seeing much of a stretch at all.

The title of the article was "Apostles Talk about Reasons for Lifting Ban," not reasons for instituting it in the first place.

Context, as always, matters.

4 hours ago, Senator said:

Wow, there's quite a bit in that quote that doesn't sit well with me.

Like?

[cinepro]

On 2/6/2016 at 2:47 AM, Russell C McGregor said:

You're right.

Why do you assume that the "skins" in verse 6 aren't the same as the "skins" in verse 5? Is that because you don't want them to be?

That's a fair question.  Here are the verses:

 

Quote

5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

 6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

 7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

 8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

Alma 3

 

 

So the question is whether or not the "skins" in verse 6 are the same "skins" described in verse 5.

Verse 5 describes a "skin" which is "girded about their loins", so this would seem to indicate a type of clothing or loin-cloth.

Now, does it make sense for verses 6 - 8 to be referring to their loin-cloths, or is it now talking about their actual skin/dermal pigmentation?

In order for those verses to be referring to the loin-cloths, this is what it would be saying:

 

Quote

 

 6 And the [loin-cloths] of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

 7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God [made their loin cloths dark], yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

 8 And [their loin cloths were made darker] that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

 

Honestly, that doesn't make much sense to me.  I don't see how God making Laman and Lemuel's clothing darker would allow future generations of Nephites to identify them and avoid mixing with them ("Kids, avoid the people who had ancestors with darker than usual loin-cloths.")

The text (and context) seems to be specifically describing a visible, genetic change:

 

Quote

 8 

And their [skin was made darker with a genetically transmitted change] that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

 

Sorry, but that just seems to be what the text is saying, and all the alternate theories presented (or alluded to) just don't make sense. 

I suspect that's why the plain reading is still taught in Church publications.  Maybe that's because Church leaders don't "want them to be" describing something else, but I suspect it's mostly due to them being able to read English and not trying to force a alternate reading that makes no sense.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by cinepro

[cacheman]

On 2/6/2016 at 11:17 AM, BlueDreams said:

I also don't see it in context of the rest of manual statements. (I lean toward man-mad, but responded I don't know)

From what I see it states several times in the lesson that they don't know about it's commencement.

They state that others had promptings to wait or it wasn't the time just yet (I'm paraphrasing here).

The only thing directly called a revelation is the removal of the ban and they mentioned that prophets felt like it could only be removed by revelation because it had been around for over a century by then. It doesn't say they needed revelation in order to remove a command from the Lord.

So to me the section in question is ambivalent to what it's pointing to. It could be inferred they way you read it, but it also could refer to the process of it's removal and the sense to wait that was mentioned a couple of times. 

 

With luv,

BD

I re-read it, and what you wrote makes sense.  I guess the 'command' could be referring to the command to allow all men to be given the priesthood.  I wasn't used to seeing that revelation being referred to as a command, but maybe that's what he was referring to.  I'd be interested in seeing the full transcript.  That might shed light on what was exactly meant with that terminology.

[mfbukowski]

On 2/6/2016 at 7:32 AM, consiglieri said:

I am not anti-Mormon.

I am pro-Truth.

Oh my.  THE TRUTH, which you do not believe exists in the first place. We have had enough discussions for you to show that.

The unvarnished perfected reflection of "what really happened" independent of interpretation, prejudice, with total objectivity describing perfectly the morass of human emotion, political inclination, wants, desires, inspiration, debate and discussion?

You want to see into the minds of the quorum of 15 a hundred and fifty years ago, and see precisely the paths of each persons life and what affected the decision, right?  You want to analyze their childhood and what caused them to think as they did and every circumstance of their birth and upbringing with perfect dispassion and judge peach person as God does weighing a these circumstances.  

You want to analyze the scriptures true meaning independent of symbology to know perfectly the mind and will of God himself with every nuance of every syllable opened up to your dispassionate examination for you to judge in perfect objectivity what "really happened", right?

Uh huh.

[consiglieri]

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 0:09 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

So you claim "an abundance of sources" -- but you're only able to find one.

And, by an extraordinary coincidence, it's one that anti-Mormons love to cherry-pick.

Funny, that.

It's clear that "this example alone" is the only one you could think of.

Unfortunately, it doesn't claim what you assert that it claims.

But of course, you knew that.

You're just falsely accusing the brethren, as you habitually do.

To say that the prophet speaks for the Lord is not to assert that the prophet never says anything except when he is speaking for the Lord.

But again, of course, you knew that. Perfectly well.

A fine unscrupulous lawyer trick: try to deflect attention from your own bad faith by going on the attack.

And you do it with such practiced skill.

 

 

This is a good example of why it is hard to take you seriously, Russell.

I say the prophets claim infallibility for themselves and encourage members to do the same.

You ask for a reference.

I give you a reference.

You first complain how all I came up with is one reference, and imply I am an anti-Mormon, as "it's one that anti-Mormons love to cherry-pick."

You then dispute the interpretation of my reference, adding that I am "falsely accusing the brethren," and then say it is something I "habitually do."

You next claim victory by changing the argument, saying that this reference does not "assert that the prophet never says anything except when he is speaking for the Lord."

But of course, that isn't what I said.  I expect you know that, though.

You then accuse me of being "unscrupulous" and acting in "bad faith."

But am I really the one who is acting in "bad faith"?

I will let the readers decide.

Hugs!

 

[thesometimesaint]

23 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 say the prophets claim infallibility for themselves and encourage members to do the same.

One small problem. They don't claim infallibility.

SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible

Edited February 8, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/5/2016 at 1:44 PM, busybee said:

Oh please! I am not going to respond to you any more. When you have lived in South Africa for 40 years you can lecture me as to how things were and are in the country.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US0LMxUnzQU

[consiglieri]

46 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

One small problem. They don't claim infallibility.

SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible

Strange that the FAIRMormon article to which you link makes no mention of President Ezra Taft Benson's 14-Fundamentals of Following the Prophet.

You know, the one that was recycled in last year's official RS/Priesthood manual.

The one that is approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve . . .

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Strange that the FAIRMormon article to which you link makes no mention of President Ezra Taft Benson's 14-Fundamentals of Following the Prophet.

You know, the one that was recycled in last year's official RS/Priesthood manual.

The one that is approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve . . .

There you go.

Proof that the FP and Q of 12 are fallible.  Thanks for the evidence.

Hymn 240

Quote

 

1. Know this, that ev'ry soul is free
To choose his life and what he'll be;
For this eternal truth is giv'n:
That God will force no man to heav'n.
2. He'll call, persuade, direct aright,
And bless with wisdom, love, and light,
In nameless ways be good and kind,
But never force the human mind.
3. Freedom and reason make us men;
Take these away, what are we then?
Mere animals, and just as well
The beasts may think of heav'n or hell.
4. May we no more our pow'rs abuse,
But ways of truth and goodness choose;
Our God is pleased when we improve
His grace and seek his perfect love.
Text: Anon., ca. 1805, Boston. Included in the first LDS hymnbook, 1835.

 

 

 

 

This is the spirit of America. This is the spirit which enveloped Joseph Smith with every breath he took.  This is the same Weltanschauung at the base of the church- including manifest destiny- the idea that we can create our world from matter unorganized with a trek into the west to create a new society of freedom.

I think that talk represents an odd thread of authoritarianism that doesn't fit with our overall history, and your comment is evidence of that as well.

You ignore the evidence given, and focus on the negative.  

Quote

4. May we no more our pow'rs abuse,
But ways of truth and goodness choose;

"Choose" is the operative word there, and you choose the negative every time.

It's your choice. Half full or half empty.

Edited February 8, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Senator]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There you go.

Proof that the FP and Q of 12 are fallible.  Thanks for the evidence.

 

Somehow I don't think the FP and Q of 12 would agree with that.

[mfbukowski]

Fallibility means that they will make mistakes.

Thanks for pointing that out, but unfortunately it destroys your case.

[Senator]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Fallibility means that they will make mistakes.

Thanks for pointing that out, but unfortunately it destroys your case.

My case? or Their case?