Gray Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 18 hours ago, Pa Pa said: You say you agree and then go back to the negative, that is called the "kiss me kick me method", when debating. I just don't want to see my former brothers and sister standing on the sidewalk yelling at women and children, as so many other have and still do. But enough, I can see we are not going to agree, so I won't try to reason with you anymore. Let's just agree to disagree. Well, talking about tough issues isn't negative or bad. For example, you disagree with the policy on not baptizing children of gay couples. It's not mean spirited or negative to say that you disagree and explain why. That's what I'm talking about 1
JAHS Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Well that's only sort of true. The Journals have been referenced in Conference talks, the Ensign, and Church manuals over the years. Doesn't that make them a source for official Church teachings? Only those parts that were referenced in talks, magazines and manuals. I meant the entire JOD itself. Of course it is going to get some things right. 48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I feel the same way about the Ensign and current Church manuals These are less of a problem because they are written down and approved by the author and someone in authority before they are sent out to the membership; that wasn't always the case for the JOD.
ALarson Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, JAHS said: Why do you do this? We have heard these hundreds of times before. I don't trust what was recorded in the JOD. It was a semimonthly subscription publication privately printed in Liverpool, England, where the speakers talks were recorded in shorthand and then reproduced some time later in England; no doubt producing some errors and misunderstandings on what was said or meant. It has never served in the past as a source for official Church teachings or scripture. It reflects the personal feelings, opinions, and speculations of the writers and/or speakers of the time as they spoke extemporaneously at the pulpit. And even though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. What was written was not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. And because of line upon line learning we know more now than we knew back then about God and His doctrines. Was Brigham Young still alive when they were published (sincere question....and I'll look this up too)? I can't imagine Brigham allowing anything or approving anything that misquoted him or wasn't an accurate statement regarding what his views were. He was so clear and so blunt and always seemed to want the people to know exactly what he was teaching and expressing. Even after publication, Brigham Young would have most likely corrected it or destroyed it (like he did the history of Lucy Mack Smith's that he felt was not accurate...the "History of Joseph Smith By His Mother"). This history was written by Orson Pratt and published in Liverpool, England too (in 1853): After its publication, Brigham Young declared the book to be a "tissue of lies" and wanted corrections made.[2] In the Millennial Star in 1855, he said, There are many mistakes in the work… I have had a written copy of those sketches in my possession for several years, and it contains much of the history of the Prophet Joseph. Should it ever be deemed best to publish these sketches, it will not be done until after they are carefully corrected.[3] In 1865, Young ordered the church members to have their copies destroyed So, Brigham didn't mess around if he felt something had been published that wasn't accurate. I know that some of his quotes sometimes weren't exactly transcribed word for word as he spoke them (I have read this too), but do you have some examples? Did the published quotes vs. the actual quotes change the meaning? Edited To Add: The Journal of Discourses was published between 1854 and 1886. Brigham died in 1877, so most of this journal would have been published prior to his death (I would imagine...or at least much of it). And just because it was published over in England doesn't mean Brigham wasn't reading it or wouldn't have made corrections (just as he did with Orson Pratt's history that was published in England). It would be interesting to see how much of the JOD was published prior to Brigham's death vs. after his death. . Edited March 31, 2016 by ALarson 3
JLHPROF Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 57 minutes ago, JAHS said: Only those parts that were referenced in talks, magazines and manuals. I meant the entire JOD itself. Of course it is going to get some things right. ??? And you don't see the problem here? The parts that are chosen to be referenced in current materials are acceptable. The parts that are not should not relied upon. This is pure hypocrisy in naming acceptable source material. The chapter in the Brigham Young manual on the Godhead quotes liberally from the address in Journal of Discourses 1:46-53. This is the discourse where Adam-God was clearly taught in General Conference for the first time. (And NO, he wasn't misquoted here as the same teaching was taught dozens of times by Brigham and others). So we are to believe that only the out of context snippets that make it into the current manuals are official doctrine and the source material from which they are derived is just opinion and full of error. Was the discourse inspired when delivered or not? Did Brigham have the spirit when he taught the bits we like and suddenly lose it for a few seconds when he was saying the bits we don't? If we get to start pulling Conference talks apart into proof text sentences and only taking the bits we agree with there isn't a single teaching of the Church that is safe. I am not saying there are no errors in the JOD, but the idea that only the parts we still quote are inspired and all the rest is questionable is utterly ridiculous. What's next? I like D&C 84:27, but I just think D&C 84:28 was something Joseph put in himself. 2
JAHS Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, ALarson said: Did the published quotes vs. the actual quotes change the meaning? I think it would be hard to know what was actually said and compare it to what was published, since most of the talks were given extemporaneously. The speakers rarely if at all had written speeches from which they spoke from. The early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit.Elder Orson Pratt noted, sometimes he – and probably other speakers – gave sermons when their “mind seemed to be entirely closed up....” Recalling such an incident, Pratt remarked, “What few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.” Nov 24 1872 Edited March 31, 2016 by JAHS
ALarson Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, JAHS said: I think it would be hard to know what was actually said and compare it to what was published, since most of the talks were given extemporaneously. The speakers rarely if at all had written speeches from which they spoke from. The early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit. Elder Orson Pratt said, sometimes he – and probably other speakers – gave sermons when their “mind seemed to be entirely closed up....” Recalling such an incident, Pratt remarked, “What few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.” (DISCOURSE BY ELDER ORSON PRATT, DELIVERED IN THE 13TH WARD ASSEMBLY ROOMS, NOV. 24, 1872.) I doubt that Brigham Young would have allowed quotes to be published that misrepresented his opinions and beliefs or that were inaccurate. Again, look at how he handled the history that Orson Pratt published (in Liverpool, England just as the JOD was). Do you have any evidence that the meaning was changed when the wording was altered some? And when did these changes occur (before or after Brigham's death)? . Edited March 31, 2016 by ALarson 1
CA Steve Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 13 minutes ago, JAHS said: I think it would be hard to know what was actually said and compare it to what was published, since most of the talks were given extemporaneously. The speakers rarely if at all had written speeches from which they spoke from. The early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit.Elder Orson Pratt noted, sometimes he – and probably other speakers – gave sermons when their “mind seemed to be entirely closed up....” Recalling such an incident, Pratt remarked, “What few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.” Nov 24 1872 Would you apply this same criticism to what is recorded on the Nephite record? 2
JAHS Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 10 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Would you apply this same criticism to what is recorded on the Nephite record? Could be: And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ. (1830 Book of Mormon title page) And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you. (Mormon 8:12) However God did say: "And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things." (D&C 33:16) And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel. (D&C 42: 12) So I think at least God believes it is correct enough for us to use as His word.
CA Steve Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, JAHS said: Could be: And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ. (1830 Book of Mormon title page) And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you. (Mormon 8:12) However God did say: "And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things." (D&C 33:16) And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel. (D&C 42: 12) So I think at least God believes it is correct enough for us to use as His word. Your D&C quote applies equally to today and what the elders, priests and teachers of THIS church are saying today.
ALarson Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 25 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Would you apply this same criticism to what is recorded on the Nephite record? And also speeches from General Conference? I think the wording is sometimes changed for those talks prior to them being published in the Ensign.
ALarson Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 8 minutes ago, JAHS said: So I think at least God believes it is correct enough for us to use as His word. Using this reasoning, Brigham Young seemed to believe what was printed from his speeches was "correct enough for us to use" as his words (at least the portion that was published prior to his death). Why would you believe Brigham would not have made corrections if the published words quoting him were not representative of his beliefs and views?
JAHS Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: Using this reasoning, Brigham Young seemed to believe what was printed from his speeches was "correct enough for us to use" as his words (at least the portion that was published prior to his death). Why would you believe Brigham would not have made corrections if the published words quoting him were not representative of his beliefs and views? Brigham Young said: "Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. " He also states: " I say now, when they (discourses)are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture." LDS scholar John Walsh said: "Very few of the recorded sermons of Brigham Young were reviewed for correctness by the him. Even fewer sermons were announced as scripture. For the most part, President Young's sermons were given on an impromptu basis and hand recorded by third parties when he spoke. Since only Jesus Christ was perfect and infallible, it is not surprising that some of his sermons are erroneously transcribed. The fact that President Young required a statement to be reviewed and corrected before it is called scripture presupposes errors in some of the impromtu remarks that were recorded by third parties."http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/by_sermons_scripture.htm
ALarson Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, JAHS said: Brigham Young said: "Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. " He also states: " I say now, when they (discourses)are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture." LDS scholar John Walsh said: "Very few of the recorded sermons of Brigham Young were reviewed for correctness by the him. Even fewer sermons were announced as scripture. For the most part, President Young's sermons were given on an impromptu basis and hand recorded by third parties when he spoke. Since only Jesus Christ was perfect and infallible, it is not surprising that some of his sermons are erroneously transcribed. The fact that President Young required a statement to be reviewed and corrected before it is called scripture presupposes errors in some of the impromtu remarks that were recorded by third parties."http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/by_sermons_scripture.htm Do you have a source for this actual quote? And, this is in regards to believing that whatever Brigham stated was to be considered scripture. That doesn't mean Brigham Young didn't read quotes attributed to him after they were published. I have to believe he would have corrected anything that was in error regarding his beliefs and teachings. Again, look at how he handled Orson Pratt's history and I would imagine he'd be even more strict regarding anything quoting him. That's strong evidence he would not have allowed members to see or read quotes from him that were not accurate. But once again, can you provide an example of changes made that altered the meaning of his quote? I would like to see what you are referring to here. If you can't provide examples, I'll just assume it is your opinion that the meaning was actually altered, but you have no proof. Edited March 31, 2016 by ALarson 1
Popular Post Nevo Posted March 31, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) The sermons recorded in the Journal of Discourses were certainly edited, sometimes heavily, but we shouldn't imagine that George Watt attributed anything incendiary or controversial to Brigham Young that he didn't actually say. According to a recent article, Brigham Young likely was "aware of, and possible even condoned, Watt's general practice of editing the sermons in order to present the speakers in a more polished, erudite light. Indeed, . . . Young may have expressly charged Watt to make such changes." (Gerrit Dirkmaat and LaJean Purcell Carruth, "The Prophets Have Spoken, but What Did They Say?" BYU Studies Quarterly 54, no. 4 [2015]: 36). Watt didn't introduce changes that made Young appear less refined. Here is an excerpt from the unedited shorthand transcription of Young's speech to the Utah Territorial Legislature on 5 February 1852: Quote but let me tell you further let my seed mingle with seed of Cain brings the curse upon me and my generations reap the same rewards as Cain in the priesthood tell you what it do if he were to mingle their seed with the seed of Cain bring not only curse upon them selves but entail it on their children get rid of it if a man in an unguarded moment would walk up and say cut up my off my head redeem them and kill man mother and children would have to atone for sin but curse them injure them no do them good that they may be saved with their brethren talk about killing folk greatest blessings to some to kill them — Brigham Young, 5 February 1852, MS 4534 box 1, fd 3, images 142, 140, 138, 136, 134, Carruth transcription, 1 March 2013, page 3, CHL. This is as ugly as anything in the JD. And there's plenty more like it, unfortunately. Edited March 31, 2016 by Nevo 5
Keq82 Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 16 hours ago, JAHS said: Are you really a member? Of course polygamy was doctrine; it still is, although we do not practice it now. Slavery was a legal accepted practice back then and Young believed in the curse of Cain which put the blacks in a position to be slaves. We know better now; he probably does too. Because of what I already explained the Church never accepted the JOD as "official" doctrine; just reports of what some church leaders said at the pulpit, things which may have been right or wrong. Yes. I am really a member as shocking as that might be for some. I just don't agree with some of the doctrine and I'm ashamed of some of our history.
Keq82 Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: False. You have yet to answer my original challenge, and now I make it a formal CFR, since you are in denial. This requires that you either respond with sources or accept that you were wrong. Read the rules of this board. Here is your original set of false claims, and I can number them for you if you cannot: I think pretty much all scholars (Mormon and non-Mormon) would agree that . . . . This is a forum where we share our own opinions/insight concerning various topics. As I stated in my original post, these are some of my own concerns/questions. I provided references for various historical events I talked about. You might not agree with my opinions, ideas, and/or comments, but these are some of the concerns/questions I listed. Ideas, beliefs, concerns, questions, etc. of my own do not require a CFR. That’s like telling somebody to CFR their testimony. Might I remind you that, according to the forum guidelines: “Badgering a participant for an answer that has already been given” is not allowed (since I’ve already provided an answer three times already). If you agree with slavery and polygamy, then that is your own choice/belief. I personally think they are both abhorrent. _______________________________ I think for some (and me personally), it’s the overall hypocrisy with many of the early church leaders. Have we ever truly held some of our church leaders accountable for their actions? I tried to keep my response as polite as possible, but these are some of my honest concerns: For example: Joseph Smith’s polygamous/polyandrous relationships are difficult for many people to swallow. - This is my opinion and difficult for me and others to accept, no CFR required Especially given the fact that he (Joseph Smith) would be arrested today for his actions with underage girls - Just go watch “To Catch a Predator on NBC”http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10912603/from/ET Look at the ages of Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s wives and explain how that is legal by today’s standards. Presentism, right? The only response I get from apologists is, presentism (it was just a different time). It’s in no way that simple, given the fact the Joseph Smith was marrying women who already had husbands by law - This is my own personal experience in discussing various church topics, no CFR required http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Polyandry My own logic doesn’t allow me to believe in a God that commands angels with flaming swords to marry other men’s wives. It’s just something that I will never be able to accept. I think Joseph Smith used the angel with a flaming sword as an excuse to engage in extremely unbecoming behavior. That doesn’t necessarily dismiss the fact that he had spiritual experiences and was a great preacher. - These are my own thoughts and concerns, no CRF required And yes, we don’t practice polygamy today; however, the Celestial Order of Marriage WAS doctrine that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught. “The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." - Prophet Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259” “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.” Journal of Discourses, Vol 11, p. 269, August 19, 1866. http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Initiation_of_the_practice/Joseph_Smith_practiced_plural_marriage http://www.withoutend.org/polygamy-revelations/ Furthermore, it was one of the underlying reasons the saints moved to the Salt Lake Valley—to practice the Celestial Order of Marriage (e.g., polygamy). “Mormon governance in the territory was regarded as controversial by much of the rest of the nation, partly fed by continuing lurid newspaper depictions of the polygamy practiced by the settlers, which itself had been part of the cause of their flight from the United States to the Great Salt Lake basin after being forcibly removed from their settlements farther east.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Territory The way the church and apologists downplay their actions, in many ways, makes people upset. Why not call a spade a spade and admit that he was not only fallible, but that he engaged in some serious sinful behavior? I don’t think most in the church want to admit that, unfortunately. - Once again, this is my own personal opinion/question, no CRF required. - When I look at numerous racist statements from Brigham Young about blacks, how am I supposed to accept that it is, in fact, from God? Are we to believe that a prophet of God was behind the power curve as it pertains to the abolition movement to prohibit slavery? Even just years before the Civil War, in a time in which various religious and political leaders were advocating to abolish slavery, Brigham Young was in favor of slavery. In fact, he and other Mormons in Utah owned slaves. But I am told by apologists, it was presentism and prophets are fallible. Why not admit that these prophets were wrong and sinned? Not only are they fallible, but they engaged in unbecoming behavior, which is in no way acceptable. Why not try to learn from their mistakes instead of just excusing/justifying them? - I’ve already provided references showing that Brigham Young was pro slavery (three times). - Early leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would not survive a disciplinary council today: both drank/smoke (not to mention that they each stole wives from other men), and married teenage girls. Once again, the only response from apologists is: presentism (it was simply a different time). “The Word of Wisdom was not enforced as rigorously, or with the same requirements, in Brigham Young's day. Many speakers emphasized the Lord's patience in this matter, as applied to both leaders and members. The Word of Wisdom was not the strict test of fellowships that it is for the modern member.” “It appears clear that Joseph Smith never interpreted the [Word of Wisdom] revelation as demanding total abstinence, but stressed moderation and self-control....He had no objections to using tobacco for medicinal purposes. With regard to wine and "strong drink" possibly the most accurate index to the Prophet's position was expressed by Benjamin F. Johnson, who personally knew Joseph: "As a companion, socailly, he was highly endowed; was kind, generous, mirth loving, and a times even convivial. He was partial to a well supplied table and he did not always refuse the wine that maketh the heart glad." http://en.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/Joseph_Smith_drank_alcohol_prior_to_the_martyrdom Apologists and FAIR admit that prophets are fallible …but that is it…there is nothing after that. There is no real accountability for many of these prophets’ actions and unbecoming behavior. I think part of the problem is that we put prophets and our leaders on such high pedestals (as if they were heroes), we forget that some were men with MAJOR flaws. Joseph Smith is an extremely polarizing figure; he did a lot of great things, but he was also involved in many controversial, immoral practices. I think with many who have grown up in the church and were told from a young age that the Mormon narrative is a certain way, there is a cognitive dissonance associated with admitting our early leaders’ flaws/sins. Until we take the next step and actually reconcile some of our rough history, this will continue to be a recursive discussion among apologists and critics. - These are my own concerns/opinions, no CFR required Edited March 31, 2016 by Keq82
Keq82 Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: CFR on these statements also. Do I need to number them for you? I expect full documentation, including quotations. Of course you have no such sources. As members, we should all be ashamed that early prophets taught and practiced such awful practices. My own personal belief, no CFR required. Polygamy WAS doctrine; Brigham Young openly was in favor of slavery. I already provided references in my previous posts (four times). Of course the church says the JOD are no longer doctrine, because the doctrine they taught was disgraceful. My own opinion on this subject, but the church does not consider the JOD doctrine. "While the Journal of Discourses is not, and has never been regarded as scripture or officially binding in itself, it contains a great deal of value. Present-day Church members have had extensive exposure to the Journal of Discourses in their priesthood and Relief Society manuals which focus on teachings of past presidents of the Church. Critics may not be aware that these quotations are in the Journal of Discourses, since other primary or secondary sources are sometimes cited in the footnotes." http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/Church_is_trying_to_hide_them Edited March 31, 2016 by Keq82
JLHPROF Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, JAHS said: Brigham Young said: "Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. " He also states: " I say now, when they (discourses)are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture." LDS scholar John Walsh said: "Very few of the recorded sermons of Brigham Young were reviewed for correctness by the him. Even fewer sermons were announced as scripture. For the most part, President Young's sermons were given on an impromptu basis and hand recorded by third parties when he spoke. Since only Jesus Christ was perfect and infallible, it is not surprising that some of his sermons are erroneously transcribed. The fact that President Young required a statement to be reviewed and corrected before it is called scripture presupposes errors in some of the impromtu remarks that were recorded by third parties."http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/by_sermons_scripture.htm This is such an excuse. SOME errors may have crept in, but most items that we'd like to think were errors (Adam-God, Blood Atonement etc) were repeated numerous times and by more than just Brigham. I have yet to see an error presented in any JOD discourse that changed a core Brigham Young teaching on a subject. 2
Keq82 Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 6 hours ago, sdc999 said: Keg82. Your teacher has spoken. If you do not turn in your assignment, you will have to stay for after school detention and you will receive demerits. You may also have to wear the 'dunce' hat and sit in the corner. You need to provide a CFR on that emoji smile and comment. Such a waste of time...
JLHPROF Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, Keq82 said: As members, we should all be ashamed that early prophets taught and practiced such awful practices. My own personal belief, no CFR required. Polygamy WAS doctrine; Brigham Young openly was in favor of slavery. I already provided references in my previous posts (four times). Of course the church says the JOD are no longer doctrine, because the doctrine they taught was disgraceful. My own opinion on this subject, but the church does not consider the JOD doctrine. "While the Journal of Discourses is not, and has never been regarded as scripture or officially binding in itself, it contains a great deal of value. Present-day Church members have had extensive exposure to the Journal of Discourses in their priesthood and Relief Society manuals which focus on teachings of past presidents of the Church. Critics may not be aware that these quotations are in the Journal of Discourses, since other primary or secondary sources are sometimes cited in the footnotes." http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/Church_is_trying_to_hide_them You are correct on all of this, except one point - "the doctrine they taught was disgraceful." With the exception of the racist items you have already quoted I consider nothing else taught by the early prophets to be in any way "disgraceful". And the racist comments have already been revoked, disavowed, and explained in context of the time. Not sure what more you could ask of the Church on that subject. 1
Keq82 Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You are correct on all of this, except one point - "the doctrine they taught was disgraceful." With the exception of the racist items you have already quoted I consider nothing else taught by the early prophets to be in any way "disgraceful". And the racist comments have already been revoked, disavowed, and explained in context of the time. Not sure what more you could ask of the Church on that subject. We have different opinions on polygamy then. However, I don't think the church has fully gone through the reconcilation/reprentence process for some of its past mistakes. I think we as a LDS culture are still trying to admit our mistakes. We have a long way to go... This is all the church says about slavery in Utah: "The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.10 According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.11 Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.12 Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained." https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng Where is the condeming of church leaders who believed and advocated for slavery? We owe it to ourselves and African Americans (all blacks throughout the world) to admit what they preached, taught, and practiced was NOT from God. The church is still trying to admit that it has done wrong (which is the first step in the repentence process).
Calm Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 6 hours ago, sdc999 said: I didn't do this all the time, but on occasion, I did get up and walk out on someone who began their talk with, "I put off preparing until midnight last night but I was able to throw something together". My wife would get mad. I viewed it as a complete disrespecting of my time and a disrespecting of the Lord's time. It is possible that for some it may not be disrespect, but so much respect or awe (in part of their thoughts) that they do not believe they can meet what is required of them. Iow, it is insecurity and fear of failure, not carelessness, that led them to putting off dealing with the talk and they are even too insecure to admit it publicly or possibly even to themselves, so they pass it off as just being too busy or whatever. Some of the most arrogant appearing people I know have built up this appearance to keep from being hurt by judgment, trying to convince themselves they don't really care. It can take a long time and a lot of different experiences with someone to be able to see the why though. Having pity for those who don't understand why they are really there at the pulpit, whether because of carelessness, disrespect, insecurity, arrogance or whatever may help in dealing with the consequences and allow us to find gems buried in the experience of listening, even if there are no gems in the talk itself. 2
ksfisher Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 12 minutes ago, Keq82 said: Where is the condeming of church leaders who believed and advocated for slavery? Where is the forgiveness?
Calm Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 18 minutes ago, Keq82 said: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng Where is the condeming of church leaders who believed and advocated for slavery? We owe it to ourselves and African Americans (all blacks throughout the world) to admit what they preached, taught, and practiced was NOT from God. The church is still trying to admit that it has done wrong (which is the first step in the repentence process). From the link: "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." 1
JLHPROF Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 21 minutes ago, Keq82 said: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng Where is the condeming of church leaders who believed and advocated for slavery? We owe it to ourselves and African Americans (all blacks throughout the world) to admit what they preached, taught, and practiced was NOT from God. The church is still trying to admit that it has done wrong (which is the first step in the repentence process). You mean like this: 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. Or does that not rip the early prophets to shreds enough for you? Not enough to disavow and condemn their teachings, they must be publicly eviscerated for being wrong on those teachings. Right? Glad God doesn't work that way.
Recommended Posts