Was the Priesthood-temple ban from man or God?

[cinepro]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 

What's wrong with that?

He is not claiming infallibility- he just just saying he can talk about plumbing if he wants.  Read what the words say.  That's just freedom of speech

Don't confuse what he actually said with what you wish he said. 

 

Quote

 

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.

 

So, let's say a Prophet says that Noah's flood covered the entire planet, and "earthly knowledge" tells us that's physically improbable.  According to the fifth principle of President Benson's 14 points, what should you do?

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

So, let's say a Prophet says that Noah's flood covered the entire planet, and "earthly knowledge" tells us that's physically improbable.  According to the fifth principle of President Benson's 14 points, what should you do?

Live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.
In any of the revelations did GOD say the flood covered the planet?
Can God lie?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

As councils?

If they have said that the FP and Q of 12 (as a collective group) are fallible, then I would like to see that statement.

LOL

They also never said they were blue or not blue.  I can't show you that because they never said they were either fallible or infallible.

Show me one place they said they were infallible.   Not your INTERPRETATION of what your mind assembles as "infallible" but where they used that word.

President Uchtdorf: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

Quote

 

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.⁵

Unanswered Questions

Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.

Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.

Sometimes there is a difference of opinion as to what the “facts” really mean. A question that creates doubt in some can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.

Mistakes of Imperfect People

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”⁶

This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.

It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed.

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

 

I am not going to argue with you about it.   If that is what you think we believe, I am not going to change your view.

Edited February 9, 2016 by mfbukowski

[VideoGameJunkie]

Are there any African American posters on this board who have weighed in on the Priesthood ban? I've never heard a black Mormon speak on the Priesthood ban before surprisingly.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Are there any African American posters on this board who have weighed in on the Priesthood ban? I've never heard a black Mormon speak on the Priesthood ban before surprisingly.

If you have read the whole thread, you will be able to answer your own question.  If not, perhaps you should read it again.

[VideoGameJunkie]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you have read the whole thread, you will be able to answer your own question.  If not, perhaps you should read it again.

Awww I don't want to search through 12 pages.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Don't confuse what he actually said with what you wish he said. 

 

 

So, let's say a Prophet says that Noah's flood covered the entire planet, and "earthly knowledge" tells us that's physically improbable.  According to the fifth principle of President Benson's 14 points, what should you do?

 

LOL

You are not understanding the point.  I think prophets are fallible, which is what the church teaches.  Joseph taught that, but he also taught some doctrinal rigidity as well.

 I disagree with president Benson, which is fine BECAUSE I believe prophets are fallible.  This statement doesn't bother me because I disagree with it and find no internal conflict in  the fact that I that disagree with him any more than me disagreeing with you.  No cog dis.

I would advise others to pray about it and get your own answer and decide if that is worth you walking or not

If it bugs you enough, walk.  No biggie.  You have no shackles on you- if you think the church is wrong you leave, you don't hang around and whine like some folks I know.

If you don't believe, you change religions.  I have done it a few times myself without whining and crying. 

Quote

if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.

That is a tremendously unclear hypothetical.  I don't think he is talking there about Noah's flood.  If he was, who cares.  That is not important to me.  He could believe in the flood and maybe I do or not- that is not important to me.  If he was talking about me selling my house and moving to Missouri,  I would pray and evaluate and see how it felt, but the decision would be mine.  If he told me to do something I disagreed with I would evaluate it, pray about it, and if I disagreed, and if it was important, bye bye.

But as it is this whole talk seems..... strident and frankly somewhat self serving to me.  Overall I disagree with the tone.

But prophets are men, so it really doesn't bother me one iota and I cannot see why it should bother anyone.  People make mistakes.  Prophets are only prophets when they are inspired and when we verify that inspiration with our own testimonies.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Are there any African American posters on this board who have weighed in on the Priesthood ban? I've never heard a black Mormon speak on the Priesthood ban before surprisingly.

I'm half black, but not technically African-American. So if you want that, just look for my name throughout it and you'll figure it out pretty quick. I've heard a number of people black(or part black) and/or african-american. Many that i've talked to don't find it to be of divine origin. Some mentioned that it it was allowed because of racism and their inability to fully accept black members. I'd heard one who mentioned the idea about it's just something that happens and God chooses who to give the priesthood to at different times. It's didn't sit well with a number of (mostly black) people in the audience who were well studied and thoughtful about issues of race in the church.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The reason such questionable teachings keep getting recycled is because Church leaders pretty much never tell the membership an apostle has gone off the reservation.

They may do it privately, but seldom publicly.

The result is that the Church continues to publish the errant articles long after both the speaker and the disapprobating prophet are long gone.

Let a thousand flowers blossom?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Are there any African American posters on this board who have weighed in on the Priesthood ban? I've never heard a black Mormon speak on the Priesthood ban before surprisingly.

Black members have spoken out frequently in recent decades in a variety of venues.  If you want to hear one in the future, check in with http://www.blacklds.org/ .  You can read just such a lecture at http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-no-johnny-come-lately-the-182-year-long-black-mormon-moment (Darius Gray's August 2012 FairMormon conference speech), or at http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/blacks-scriptures (Marvin Perkins' Aug 2014, FairMormon conference speech).  The videos may be available on Youtube.

[Bobbieaware]

On February 5, 2016 at 11:45 PM, juliann said:

This is one of the most racist and demeaning posts I have seen on this board.

Could you please explain to me how offering encouragement to follow the Christlike example of the Ammonite (Lamanite) converts to fully embrace the Gospel, be reconciled in true brotherhood with former enemies, and give up on nurturing old grudges can in any way be construed to be racist? The Ammonite converts I was speaking of did indeed fully embrace the Gospel their forefathers once rejected, did indeed take all the steps necessary in order to be fully reconciled in genuine friendship with their former Nephite enemies, and did totally give up on the spiritually-debilitating practice of nurturing old grudges. Were these wonderful Lamanite converts also racist because they put aside hate and resentment in favor of love and reconciliation?

It's an outrage that somebody can cavalierly lay the charge of racism on a totally innocent party and get that person banned from participation on the board (or even being able to read posts) for ten days. You would have been better off asking me to further elucidate my points rather than jumping to rash conclusions because I can assure you with all the sincerity of my soul that my only motivation was the elevation of Gospel principles. If encouraging someone to follow the sterling example of the Ammoniye Lamanite converts can be comstrued as being racist, then it must follow that the Book of Mormon is racist. So then, do you believe the Book of Mormon is a racist document?

Edited February 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

Quote

Could you please explain to me how offering encouragement to follow the Christlike example of the Ammonite (Lamanite) converts to fully embrace the Gospel, be reconciled in true brotherhood with former enemies, and give up on nurturing old grudges can in any way be construed to be racist? The Ammonite converts I was speaking of did indeed fully embrace the Gospel their forefathers once rejected, did indeed take all the steps necessary in order to be fully reconciled in genuine friendship with their former Nephite enemies, and did totally give up on the spiritually-debilitating practice of nurturing old grudges. Were these wonderful Lamanite converts also racist because they put aside hate and resentment in favor of love and reconciliation?

It's an outrage that somebody can cavalierly lay the charge of racism on a totally innocent party and get that person banned from participation on the board (or even being able to read posts) for ten days. You would have been better off asking me to further elucidate my points rather than jumping to rash conclusions because I can assure you with all the sincerity of my soul that my only motivation was the elevation of Gospel principles. If encouraging someone to follow the sterling example of the Ammoniye Lamanite converts can be comstrued as being racist, then it must follow that the Book of Mormon is racist. So then, do you believe the Book of Mormon is a racist document?

Interesting that you've dropped the use of the term  'burdens of curse'  which is remarkably absent from this post explaining your last post which was loaded with it.

You did more than encouraging someone to follow a sterling example.  You decided you knew what was wrong with her, that she was holding on to "old grudges", burdens and what was the cure. You used a group of people to liken to her situation that you considered burdened with a curse of a darkened skin.  You lectured Bluedreams implying she was not good enough, that she had not enough faith, hadn't fully embraced the Gospel or given up old grudges or hadn't fully embraced others in fellowship in the Church, etc. etc.

What was racist was that you were determining what was appropriate for her to feel and act as one that is seen as mixed race when you had never been in her situation and knew little of her and understood less (obvious from the way you responded to her) and yet you saw yourself in the role of her teacher of correct behaviour and how to turn herself into the true white individual that you are a model of (even if you only meant it figuratively) when you didn't even see her as an individual but as a caricature of your own preconceived judgements as evidenced by you picking on certain key words that you then slipped into a ready made narrative that had little to do with Bluedreams and then judged, condemned and then offered the way of enlightenment to her, possibly even in a literal sense.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Interesting that you've dropped the use of the term  'burdens of curse'  which is remarkably absent from this post explaining your last post which was loaded with it.

You did more than encouraging someone to follow a sterling example.  You decided you knew what was wrong with her and what was the cure. You used a group of people to liken to her that you considered cursed with a darkened skin.  You lectured Bluedreams implying she was not good enough, that she had not enough faith, hadn't fully embraced the Gospel or given up old grudges or hadn't fully embraced others in fellowship in the Church, etc. etc.

What was racist was that you were determining what was appropriate for her to feel and act as one that is seen as mixed race when you had never been in her situation and knew little of her and understood less (obvious from the way you responded to her) and yet you saw yourself in the role of her teacher of correct behaviour and how to turn herself into the true white individual that you are a model of (even if you only meant it figuratively) when you didn't even see her as an individual but as a caricature of your own preconceived judgements.

BlueDreams said she largely agreed with my analysis but that, unlike the Lamanite converts, she didn't as yet have the faith to completely follow through on letting go of old hurts. So I tried to encourage her to follow in the footsteps of those Lamanite converts whose wonderful example powerfully demonstrates it's possible to overcome thorny issues that for many seem impossible to overcome.

In case you missed it, I specifically refered to the "burdens of the curse" in my last post. As I have repeatedly said, those burdens are alienation from the healing power Gospel (to one degree or another), maintaining a bitter attitude toward those who were not placed under the curse, and nurturing old grudges rather than laying those grudges at the foot of the cross of Christ. I have been consistent. 

The bottom line on all of this ridiculous misunderstanding is that I was encouraged when BlueDreams said she agreed with my Gospel analysis but that she wasn't quite prepared to follow the example to the Ammonite converts just yet. So I sincerely tried to encourage her to let go of whatever it is that's holding her back from a life of greater spiritual freedom and joy.

You see, I speak from experience: At one time I was so embittered against certain priesthood leaders in my stake, for certain very real injustices, that I once thought it would be absolutely impossible to ever be reconciled with them and no longer be consumed by red-hot anger and resentment. But over time I decided to look into my own heart for the role I played in the debacle and try to see things from the point of view of those I so deeply loathed and resented. But to make a very long story short, by applying the principles of the Gospel of Christ, and exercising a degree of faith I didn't know I was capable of applying, the rift has been healed and genuine love and sincere friendship have displaced all that former resentment and rage.

As to your accusation that I was somehow depersonalizing BlueDreams in my posts, all I can say is that was most certainly not my intent but I'm sincerely sorry if that's the way it came off.

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware
Typos

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

BlueDreams said she largely agreed with my analysis but that, unlike the Lamanite converts, she didn't as yet have the faith to completely follow through on letting go of old hurts. So I tried to encourage her to follow in the footsteps of those Lamanite converts whose wonderful example powerfully demonstrates it's possible to overcome thorny issues that for many seem impossible to overcome.

No, bobbie. That's not what I said. 

What I agreed with: Faith creating a positive self-image. So the basic gist. re-reading it in the context of your later posts, let's just say I've found more room for disagreement

What I then said was that your response to bdouglas fell short when reading a literalist view about skins as part of the curse/mark, because I cannot overcome my skin color. NOR DO I WANT TO....because there's nothing wrong with it. My skin is beautiful and divine as it is. In a literalist reading, there was definitely something wrong with the Lamanite skin color...which was more what I was critiquing. It's nice basic sentiment, but it falls short to the major problem people of color are going to see with this view. The only way the brown people in the story become beautiful and right in the sight of the white people was by magically becoming white themselves through God and ergo beautiful. In short your initial post fell short to addressing a brown person's likely discomfort with a literal interpretation, because it didn't take care of the problem of inherent racism that a literalist read entails. Most of my original post was about this problem. Not my agreement with you. And there wasn't a moment that I mentioned any form of lingering burdens on my end. Racism hurts, sure, but it's not my sin to hold onto nor mine to repent of. 

 

Quote

 

In case you missed it, I specifically refered to the "burdens of the curse" in my last post. As I have repeatedly said, those burdens are alienation from the healing power Gospel (to one degree or another), maintaining a bitter attitude toward those who were not placed under the curse, and nurturing old grudges rather than laying those grudges at the foot of the cross of Christ. I have been consistent. 

 

It's lines like this, that were interpreted as racist. If you can't see it, I'll help explain. 

The only point I brought up beyond a very brief sentence of agreement was about race and skin tone.

You then go on about "burdens of the curse"  and having the faith to "totally throw off" this burden from one's shoulders. 

I'm assuming you read "the worst social experiences I had" and tie ins to "terrible ideologies" as somehow lingering resentment/bitterness. i'm not resentful or bitter.  

So there's literally only 2 things that this could read into: Race, which would have been the direct tie-in to "burdens of the curse" since that was what I was talking about. Or your perceived assertions that I'm bitter about other peoples racism, in which case I just need to pray and repent to have this no longer effect me. At best this is flippant about serious racial issues. At worst it sounds like your saying I can pray my race/skin color away.

Oh, and that white people aren't under a curse. Or that those toting racist ideas aren't under a curse. But that I, somehow, am.

Even if that curse is just resentment in your mind, that STILL means you're reading and asserting you know my own heart. It also still implies that holding racist ideology is not in someway a curse in itself (I'd personally call it the curse of pride and ignorance...in a matter of fact tone, don't read bitterness here).

Any way I dissect this, it looks bad. 

 

Quote

 

The bottom line on all of this ridiculous misunderstanding is that I was encouraged when BlueDreams said she agreed with my Gospel analysis but that she wasn't quite prepared to follow the example to the Ammonite converts just yet. So I sincerely tried to encourage her to let go of whatever it is that's holding her back from a life of greater spiritual freedom and joy.

You see, I speak from experience: At one time I was so embittered against certain priesthood leaders in my stake, for certain very real injustices, that I once thought it would be absolutely impossible to ever be reconciled with them and no longer be consumed by red-hot anger and resentment. But over time I decided to look into my own heart for the role I played in the debacle and try to see things from the point of view of those I so deeply loathed and resented. But to make a very long story short, by applying the principles of the Gospel of Christ, and exercising a degree of faith I didn't know I was capable of applying, the rift has been healed and genuine love and sincere friendship have displaced all that former resentment and rage.

 

Then you're definitely misunderstanding. If it helps, I would now say I only slightly agree with your initial post that started this (the singular point of agreement is mentioned above). Again we are talking about 2 very different things and your overlaying your experience with my own. I don't maintain a fire of resentment or red-hot anger. I don't have time for that and it would mean that I would be angry all the time. Besides the lack of continuing resentment on my part, this parallel falls short when tying to my racial experience. There's not just one incident or racial slight or moment of racial ignorance or ethnocentrism or white privilege. It's a persistent experience of discomfort, tight smiles, gentle corrections, and basic confrontations when appropriate to challenge racial ideologies that are wrong....in my family, among friends, around acquaintances, with my peers, etc. Not just for myself but many of my friends.  I can't afford to have rifts with everyone who makes a racial slight, unintentional or not. And the only role I play is being the brown girl in the room.   Again, I can't repent of that. I can't change my skin color. It is not my curse to carry. 

 

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

As to your accusation that I was somehow depersonalizing BlueDreams in my posts, all I can say is that was most certainly not my intent but I'm sincerely sorry if that's the way it came off.

It is how it came off. I accept your apology....but Bobbie, that wasn't the biggest problem. It's the racial implications that were. I mentioned before to not talk this way with youth of color, and I still mean it. I'm an optimist and I'm hopeful you didn't mean much of what your words implied. But that also means you can't see racial problems/implications in what you're saying and that blindness could be unintentionally harmful/hurtful to youth like bdouglas' step-sons or myself when I was younger. I don't say this in anger or resentment. I say this with concern.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 15, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

No, bobbie. That's not what I said. 

What I agreed with: Faith creating a positive self-image. So the basic gist. re-reading it in the context of your later posts, let's just say I've found more room for disagreement

What I then said was that your response to bdouglas fell short when reading a literalist view about skins as part of the curse/mark, because I cannot overcome my skin color. NOR DO I WANT TO....because there's nothing wrong with it. My skin is beautiful and divine as it is. In a literalist reading, there was definitely something wrong with the Lamanite skin color...which was more what I was critiquing. It's nice basic sentiment, but it falls short to the major problem people of color are going to see with this view. The only way the brown people in the story become beautiful and right in the sight of the white people was by magically becoming white themselves through God and ergo beautiful. In short your initial post fell short to addressing a brown person's likely discomfort with a literal interpretation, because it didn't take care of the problem of inherent racism that a literalist read entails. Most of my original post was about this problem. Not my agreement with you. And there wasn't a moment that I mentioned any form of lingering burdens on my end. Racism hurts, sure, but it's not my sin to hold onto nor mine to repent of. 

 

It's lines like this, that were interpreted as racist. If you can't see it, I'll help explain. 

The only point I brought up beyond a very brief sentence of agreement was about race and skin tone.

You then go on about "burdens of the curse"  and having the faith to "totally throw off" this burden from one's shoulders. 

I'm assuming you read "the worst social experiences I had" and tie ins to "terrible ideologies" as somehow lingering resentment/bitterness. i'm not resentful or bitter.  

So there's literally only 2 things that this could read into: Race, which would have been the direct tie-in to "burdens of the curse" since that was what I was talking about. Or your perceived assertions that I'm bitter about other peoples racism, in which case I just need to pray and repent to have this no longer effect me. At best this is flippant about serious racial issues. At worst it sounds like your saying I can pray my race/skin color away.

Oh, and that white people aren't under a curse. Or that those toting racist ideas aren't under a curse. But that I, somehow, am.

Even if that curse is just resentment in your mind, that STILL means you're reading and asserting you know my own heart. It also still implies that holding racist ideology is not in someway a curse in itself (I'd personally call it the curse of pride and ignorance...in a matter of fact tone, don't read bitterness here).

Any way I dissect this, it looks bad. 

 

Then you're definitely misunderstanding. If it helps, I would now say I only slightly agree with your initial post that started this (the singular point of agreement is mentioned above). Again we are talking about 2 very different things and your overlaying your experience with my own. I don't maintain a fire of resentment or red-hot anger. I don't have time for that and it would mean that I would be angry all the time. Besides the lack of continuing resentment on my part, this parallel falls short when tying to my racial experience. There's not just one incident or racial slight or moment of racial ignorance or ethnocentrism or white privilege. It's a persistent experience of discomfort, tight smiles, gentle corrections, and basic confrontations when appropriate to challenge racial ideologies that are wrong....in my family, among friends, around acquaintances, with my peers, etc. Not just for myself but many of my friends.  I can't afford to have rifts with everyone who makes a racial slight, unintentional or not. And the only role I play is being the brown girl in the room.   Again, I can't repent of that. I can't change my skin color. It is not my curse to carry. 

 

It is how it came off. I accept your apology....but Bobbie, that wasn't the biggest problem. It's the racial implications that were. I mentioned before to not talk this way with youth of color, and I still mean it. I'm an optimist and I'm hopeful you didn't mean much of what your words implied. But that also means you can't see racial problems/implications in what you're saying and that blindness could be unintentionally harmful/hurtful to youth like bdouglas' step-sons or myself when I was younger. I don't say this in anger or resentment. I say this with concern.

 

With luv,

BD

Now I see where all this misunderstanding originated. You may not believe me, but on my most solemn word of honor it is verily true that in not one of my posts was I thinking or writing about "skin tone." I can see now you assumed I was writing about skin tone as being one of the "burdens of the curse" to which I was referring. but if you go back and reread my posts you will see I was speaking of spiritually-debilitating attitudes, not skin tone.

But here's the crux of the problem: I have gone back and reread your original post to me on this thread and now realize too late that later on in that post you mentioned skin tone as an issue, but I had not even read that far when I copied and posted my response to you because I was so surprised to read you somewhat agreed with me. So my post in response to yours was only addressing our near agreement, and was written with the hope that you could be persuaded to fully agree with me.

And so I reiterate: in my haste to respond to you I didn't realize you had introduced skin tone into the discussion; so when I go back and read the posts in sequence I can see why one would think I was speaking of skin tone as being one of the burdens of the curse that one should cast off, but skin tone was not even on my mind. I guess it serves me right for jumping the gun in responding to you because if I had read all of your post I would have been careful to make it clear that throwing off the burdens of the curse does not include changing the color of one's skin by an act of will. I confess I too often respond to posts without reading them through, but now I clearly understand why doing so this is a very bad idea.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

As to your accusation that I was somehow depersonalizing BlueDreams in my posts, all I can say is that was most certainly not my intent but I'm sincerely sorry if that's the way it came off.

 

Since the conversation you were having was not actually with BlueDreams, but with this image of her you had constructed in your head causing you to misread most of what she said, yes it most certainly comes across as you depersonalizing her and being more concerned with getting a chance to lecture her than listen and learn from her.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Now I see where all this misunderstanding originated. You may not believe me, but on my most solemn word of honor it is verily true that in not one of my posts was I thinking or writing about "skin tone." I can see now you assumed I was writing about skin tone as being one of the "burdens of the curse" to which I was referring. but if you go back and reread my posts you will see I was speaking of spiritually-debilitating attitudes, not skin tone.

But here's the crux of the problem: I have gone back and reread your original post to me on this thread and now realize too late that later on in that post you mentioned skin tone as an issue, but I had not even read that far when I copied and posted my response to you because I was so surprised to read you somewhat agreed with me. So my post in response to yours was only addressing our near agreement, and was written with the hope that you could be persuaded to fully agree with me.

And so I reiterate: in my haste to respond to you I didn't realize you had introduced skin tone into the discussion; so when I go back and read the posts in sequence I can see why one would think I was speaking of skin tone as being one of the burdens of the curse that one should cast off, but skin tone was not even on my mind. I guess it serves me right for jumping the gun in responding to you because if I had read all of your post I would have been careful to make it clear that throwing off the burdens of the curse does not include changing the color of one's skin by an act of will. I confess I too often respond to posts without reading them through, but now I clearly understand why doing so this is a very bad idea.

 

The bold I can 100% agree with (please continue reading ;)). It would be helpful to not go so much into a teacher role...especially when apparently you read about a sentence and a half of a paragraph (the rest of that paragraph was all about race). But just in general as well, it comes off as patronizing. When you've read only bits or pieces of a response, particularly on things like racial issues, it come off even worse than that.

Take care, I have work now.

With luv,

BD 

[canard78]

On 2/1/2016 at 4:07 PM, rongo said:

Exactly my thoughts. Robert F. Smith's, and others like him who extol the "scholarly paradigm" (read: allegorization), method of making plain references to skin color denote metaphorical references, reminds me of B.H. Roberts's response to Reverend van der Donckt. Van der Donckt had insisted that Mormons are forced to interpret poetic passages in the Bible literally because they interpret anthropomorphic passages literally --- with obvious absurd results. Roberts responded:

Robert F. Smith wrote:

A plain reading of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses text, in context, by anybody not seeking to spin the passages into a "scholarly paradigm" yields the same results that it has up until the modern era, where some find it necessary to explain them away. In a similar vein with trying to explain away horses as people riding, farming with, and hitching chariots to tapirs. 

I think, rongo, that the reading of those verses are obvious. It's only a later post-rationalisation that gives them any alternative possible interpretation. 

[Thinking]

If the ban was from man, why would it take God so long to correct it?