rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I don't think it really matters as far as the 'leading the church astray' argument goes. Either way the ban was acceptable to God and the prophet was doing what God wanted done by keeping it in place. The entire ban could have come about because God knew the weaknesses of His people in regards to racism. The reason doesn't really matter-all that matters is whether or not God condoned it. You haven't established that the ban was acceptable to God or that He wanted it kept in place. Perhaps, as your second comment indicates, He felt it was necessary or unavoidable but that's different than acceptable/desired.
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 1 hour ago, Daniel2 said: This is the same line of reasoning I expect to eventually be applied to the revelation permitting same-sex relationships within Mormonism. Yes... I think studying the race-based temple/priesthood ban is like looking into a crystal ball as to how the church will unravel present day teachings on gay marriage and homosexuality. 1
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 Just now, rockpond said: Yes... I think studying the race-based temple/priesthood ban is like looking into a crystal ball as to how the church will unravel present day teachings on gay marriage and homosexuality. Except for one KEY difference. Prophets said the Priesthood ban was expected to come to an end (even if they were wrong on the timing). There is no such equivocation for SSM/Homosexuality.
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 13 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: That makes no sense. God is unable to get through to the men He called because of their prejudices? Either the God you believe in sounds pretty weak and/or the men He has called sound pretty mediocre. No, I flat out reject this. I believe that the men God has called to lead the Church are His humble servants. Not perfect, but if and when God wants something to change, he will communicate to them in a way that is clear, even if that means personal visitation. In Mormonism, God is at least complicit in every policy and action taken as He can prevent or undue any wrong teaching. Thus, even when things that are false have been taught and God allows/permits it, the Church is not being led astray. No, God is not weak. But, as Elder Holland explained, he only has imperfect people to work with. And he respects their agency. That isn't a sign of weakness. I also believe that the men who are called to lead the Church are His humble servants and that he can communicate with them. But I don't believe God is "complicit" in every policy and action taken by them.
Gray Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: I do not think that, but I don't think God calls people to be his Special Witness who are not humble and willing to learn and be taught by him. God could have taught Brigham Young that the ban was wrong. If Brigham would have rejected this counsel (he wouldn't have, had he received it), then God could have removed him as prophet or let the Church slide into apostasy. The ban was clearly wrong, and God clearly did not force Brigham Young to understand. God also didn't force Brigham Young to understand that the curse of Cain business was nonsense. Apparently God calls people who are more imperfect than you suppose. Don't forget, Brigham Young also taught and believed in the Adam God doctrine. God never forced him to understand it differently. Edited June 7, 2016 by Gray 2
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: Except for one KEY difference. Prophets said the Priesthood ban was expected to come to an end (even if they were wrong on the timing). There is no such equivocation for SSM/Homosexuality. Everything they ever taught/wrote about the ban has been disavowed. Why should I put any weight on the incorrect prophesy as to its expiration?
Daniel2 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said: Except for one KEY difference. Prophets said the Priesthood ban was expected to come to an end (even if they were wrong on the timing). There is no such equivocation for SSM/Homosexuality. Not yet... Just because that hasn't been said yet, doesn't mean it won't eventually be. And just because current prophets have said it won't change doesn't mean it never will. Past prophets' ultimatums have proven changeable before.
Gray Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: Except for one KEY difference. Prophets said the Priesthood ban was expected to come to an end (even if they were wrong on the timing). There is no such equivocation for SSM/Homosexuality. That really only makes it easier to remove the ban on gay families. There is no expectation that we have to wait until the return of Jesus.
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 1 minute ago, rockpond said: No, God is not weak. But, as Elder Holland explained, he only has imperfect people to work with. And he respects their agency. That isn't a sign of weakness. I also believe that the men who are called to lead the Church are His humble servants and that he can communicate with them. But I don't believe God is "complicit" in every policy and action taken by them. So if the priesthood ban was contrary to God's will, has proved to be a stumbling block for many, and God has the power to communicate with His servants, why didn't He? Communicating, heck even listening, is not dependent on someone's agency. Are you telling me, that God would not communicate to Brigham Young (even by visitation) that the ban was wrong out of respect for Brigham's agency? Wouldn't a humble servant of Christ, as you agree Brigham was, welcome counsel from on high no matter the topic? How then, would God's allowance of the ban not be anything less than condoning, if not out right commandment? Something in your thought process doesn't add up.
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: Everything they ever taught/wrote about the ban has been disavowed. Why should I put any weight on the incorrect prophesy as to its expiration? The ban itself has never been disavowed. Ever. Justifications have been.
rodheadlee Posted June 7, 2016 Author Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) On 6/2/2016 at 7:59 AM, stemelbow said: Sorry for the confusion. Consider this: If the Church were astray now, how would we know? Through a manifestaion of the Holy Ghost. That is how we confirm the truth of anything to do with the Church, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or his position as the Only Begotten Son etc. Edited June 7, 2016 by rodheadlee spelling
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: That really only makes it easier to remove the ban on gay families. There is no expectation that we have to wait until the return of Jesus. Excellent point. A fundamental change to our doctrine on homosexuality and gay marriage is likely, IMO, to come about for reasons similar to those that ended both polygamy and the temple/priesthood ban. The Manifesto was received in the midst of tremendous political and social pressure threatening the very existence of the Church. OD2 was received in the face of difficulty figuring out how to move the church forward in Brazil and other areas.
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: So if the priesthood ban was contrary to God's will, has proved to be a stumbling block for many, and God has the power to communicate with His servants, why didn't He? Communicating, heck even listening, is not dependent on someone's agency. Are you telling me, that God would not communicate to Brigham Young (even by visitation) that the ban was wrong out of respect for Brigham's agency? Wouldn't a humble servant of Christ, as you agree Brigham was, welcome counsel from on high no matter the topic? How then, would God's allowance of the ban not be anything less than condoning, if not out right commandment? Something in your thought process doesn't add up. If you aren't asking for an answer and you are unwilling to hear a response, how would God communicate with you?
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: The ban itself has never been disavowed. Ever. Justifications have been. Yes which is why I wrote my statement the way I did: "Everything they ever taught/wrote about the ban has been disavowed. "
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 8 minutes ago, Gray said: The ban was clearly wrong, and God clearly did not force Brigham Young to understand. God also didn't force Brigham Young to understand that the curse of Cain business was nonsense. Apparently God calls people who are more imperfect than you suppose. Don't forget, Brigham Young also taught and believed in the Adam God doctrine. God never forced him to understand it differently. I tend to agree that the ban did not come from God, but that does not change anything about my arguments. God would never force anyone, including his mouthpiece to accept His will or doctrine. However, I do believe that when it really counts, God speaks with clarity and He always calls people who will be humble enough to listen when it counts. IOW, not only would God not have called Brigham Young if he wouldn't listen, but if he didn't listen, Brigham would have been removed and replaced by someone who would. In the very least, God condoned the ban by His silence.
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: If you aren't asking for an answer and you are unwilling to hear a response, how would God communicate with you? Personal visitation. There is scriptural precedent for that sort of thing after all. Alma the younger comes to mind. Alma the younger still had his agency to reject the angelic message and messenger. In no way was his agency violated. Clearly God has the ability. So why didn't he use it?
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes which is why I wrote my statement the way I did: "Everything they ever taught/wrote about the ban has been disavowed. " That is inaccurate. Not everything has been disavowed. The general proposition that it would one day be lifted has never been disavowed. The OD does say that the long awaited day has come, after all.
Gray Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 18 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: I tend to agree that the ban did not come from God, but that does not change anything about my arguments. God would never force anyone, including his mouthpiece to accept His will or doctrine. However, I do believe that when it really counts, God speaks with clarity and He always calls people who will be humble enough to listen when it counts. IOW, not only would God not have called Brigham Young if he wouldn't listen, but if he didn't listen, Brigham would have been removed and replaced by someone who would. In the very least, God condoned the ban by His silence. That's an awful lot to put on God. What other evils did God condone by failing to do anything to stop them? Or did God condone Adam God because He didn't successfully communicate a different doctrine to Brigham Young? Did God condone the the false theories about the curse of Cain by failing to contradict them? It reminds me of a humorous scene I've seen a couple of times in TV and movies, where someone prays about doing something foolish, and not being contradicted or stopped by God, proceeds with their intended course of action.
Gray Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: Personal visitation. There is scriptural precedent for that sort of thing after all. Alma the younger comes to mind. Alma the younger still had his agency to reject the angelic message and messenger. In no way was his agency violated. Clearly God has the ability. So why didn't he use it? For whatever reason that doesn't appear to be a method normally employed by God. Edited June 7, 2016 by Gray
stemelbow Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 27 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Through a manifestaion of the Holy Ghost. That is how we confirm the truth of anything to do with the Church, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or his position as the Only Begotten Son etc. Ok, then be prepared for the huge potential variety of positions amongst the populace. And no one's position is any more valid than another's, if that be the standard.
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Gray said: For whatever reason that doesn't appear to be a method normally employed by God. Why didn't he use it this time? Why was he willing to do it to save one man and not an entire race? Edited June 7, 2016 by Mystery Meat
Gray Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 Just now, Mystery Meat said: Why didn't he use it this time? Why was he willing to do it to save one man and not an entire race? Why didn't God stop the holocaust? Why do church leaders rely on pilot programs? Couldn't God just appear and tell them what the best programs are? It becomes apparent to me that God simply doesn't work that way.
stemelbow Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 20 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: That is inaccurate. Not everything has been disavowed. The general proposition that it would one day be lifted has never been disavowed. The OD does say that the long awaited day has come, after all. But to be fair, in reference to that one day "And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to". This general proposition was disavowed. But it was not said the ban would be disavowed, just the actual implementation of it. It's odd because tied in with the general proposition that the ban would be disavowed was the what conditions needed to be met for disavowel. Which didn't happen.
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Gray said: Why didn't God stop the holocaust? Why do church leaders rely on pilot programs? Couldn't God just appear and tell them what the best programs are? It becomes apparent to me that God simply doesn't work that way. Working with Hitler is a bit different than working with Brigham Young. I agree there are some things that God would like us to work through and figure out on our own. I don't think denying saving ordinances to a whole class of people is one of those things. Edited June 7, 2016 by Mystery Meat
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 39 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: I tend to agree that the ban did not come from God, but that does not change anything about my arguments. God would never force anyone, including his mouthpiece to accept His will or doctrine. However, I do believe that when it really counts, God speaks with clarity and He always calls people who will be humble enough to listen when it counts. IOW, not only would God not have called Brigham Young if he wouldn't listen, but if he didn't listen, Brigham would have been removed and replaced by someone who would. In the very least, God condoned the ban by His silence. 37 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: Personal visitation. There is scriptural precedent for that sort of thing after all. Alma the younger comes to mind. Alma the younger still had his agency to reject the angelic message and messenger. In no way was his agency violated. Clearly God has the ability. So why didn't he use it? He did use it. Eventually he got his message through. Our time doesn't exist in his sphere.
Recommended Posts