Interesting changes for 3rd hour block in 2018

[mnn727]

On 6/7/2017 at 11:44 AM, ksfisher said:

Do you really thing they were that good?

Yes, I do. But then my Ward has people that participate in discussions.

The 4 old manuals we had prior to the 'Presidents' manuals were used a number of times.

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I mean speculative theories such as the one to the effect that people of African heritage were neutral during the war in heaven, that sort of thing.

Maybe not that they were "neutral", but past leaders did teach it was because of something they'd done before this life that denied blacks the priesthood.  Were these leaders speculating too?

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I mean speculative theories such as the one to the effect that people of African heritage were neutral during the war in heaven, that sort of thing.

You know, the denial of the war in heaven neutrality teaching has had an interesting side effect in the Church.

The 1949 statement said

• " another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality"

The new essay said

•  "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;"

Somehow I have heard the assumption now being made that the correction in the new essay completely negates the teaching I quoted from the 1949 statement.
It doesn't.

But for some reason I have had people indicate that our actions in the premortal existence have no bearing on the conditions into which we are born on earth.  And that's despite Abraham 3 and other indicators.
Why do we think people have made the leap that goes beyond the statement in the essay to come to believe that premortality didn't impact the condition and location of birth?

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You know, the denial of the war in heaven neutrality teaching has had an interesting side effect in the Church.

The 1949 statement said

• " another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality"

The new essay said

•  "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;"

Somehow I have heard the assumption now being made that the correction in the new essay completely negates the teaching I quoted from the 1949 statement.
It doesn't.

But for some reason I have had people indicate that our actions in the premortal existence have no bearing on the conditions into which we are born on earth.  And that's despite Abraham 3 and other indicators.
Why do we think people have made the leap that goes beyond the statement in the essay to come to believe that premortality didn't impact the condition and location of birth?

Here are more statements on this from past leaders:

(Were these leaders speculating or wrong?)

- “We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in the pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds” (Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – as they affect the church,” August 27, 1954, p. 11).

- “NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:65-66. )

- “Why is it in this Church we do not grant the priesthood to the Negroes? It is alleged that the Prophet Joseph said—and I have no reason to dispute it—that it is because of some act committed by them before they came into this life. It is alleged that they were neutral, standing neither for Christ nor the devil. But, I am convinced it is because of some things they did before they came into this life that they have been denied the privilege. The races of today are very largely reaping the consequences of a previous life” (Sermons and Missionary Service of Melvin J. Ballard, p. 248

- “The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom. What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, ‘Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.’I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven.  (George F. Richards, Conference Reports, April 1939, pp. 58-59).l

 

 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Here are more statements on this from past leaders:

(Were these leaders speculating or wrong?)

- “We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in the pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds” (Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – as they affect the church,” August 27, 1954, p. 11).

- “NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:65-66. )

- “Why is it in this Church we do not grant the priesthood to the Negroes? It is alleged that the Prophet Joseph said—and I have no reason to dispute it—that it is because of some act committed by them before they came into this life. It is alleged that they were neutral, standing neither for Christ nor the devil. But, I am convinced it is because of some things they did before they came into this life that they have been denied the privilege. The races of today are very largely reaping the consequences of a previous life” (Sermons and Missionary Service of Melvin J. Ballard, p. 248

- “The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom. What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, ‘Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.’I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven.  (George F. Richards, Conference Reports, April 1939, pp. 58-59).l

 

 

Well, according to current church position, any speculation on race being due to premortal actions is wrong.
But there is no policy that other conditions of birth are unaffected by premortal actions.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

Yes, I do. But then my Ward has people that participate in discussions.

The 4 old manuals we had prior to the 'Presidents' manuals were used a number of times.

Good for you.  I guess none of the  ever really excited me that much.

[boblloyd91]

On 6/5/2017 at 1:54 PM, bluebell said:

Some of the manuals are laughable.  My parents subbed for Sunbeams two weeks ago and the title of their lesson was "I am thankful for my ears."  That was it.  40 minutes with 3 and 4 year olds and that was all the manual had to offer.  

Well I like my ears quite a bit, I guess a lesson about being grateful for them could do a bit of good lol

[juliann]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Somehow I have heard the assumption now being made that the correction in the new essay completely negates the teaching I quoted from the 1949 statement.
It doesn't.

But for some reason I have had people indicate that our actions in the premortal existence have no bearing on the conditions into which we are born on earth.  And that's despite Abraham 3 and other indicators.
Why do we think people have made the leap that goes beyond the statement in the essay to come to believe that premortality didn't impact the condition and location of birth?

That has been disavowed before the essay. This is the problem with you not accepting modern leaders while speaking for Mormons....you don't acknowledge recent statements and it gives a very inaccurate picture.You can have the polygamy and racism but don't project it on us.

[Jeanne]

48 minutes ago, juliann said:

That has been disavowed before the essay. This is the problem with you not accepting modern leaders while speaking for Mormons....you don't acknowledge recent statements and it gives a very inaccurate picture.You can have the polygamy and racism but don't project it on us.

Just a question Juliann..but a lot of years of gone by where we have had lessons on past prophets..why?  If one is only supposed to be accepting of the present prophet..why even study the past?

[mnn727]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Here are more statements on this from past leaders:

(Were these leaders speculating or wrong?)

 

Quote

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things. All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.

Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike unto God,"

Edited June 9, 2017 by mnn727

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

That has been disavowed before the essay. This is the problem with you not accepting modern leaders while speaking for Mormons....you don't acknowledge recent statements and it gives a very inaccurate picture.You can have the polygamy and racism but don't project it on us.

What was disavowed before the essay?  The racial aspect?  Sure.

But there is no authoritative position (and certainly none that coincides with scripture) that teaches that our pre mortal actions had no effect on our mortal birth situations.

In fact I consider it the height of foolishness to suppose that this life effects our next one, but our past life had no effect on this one.

And as for polygamy, I wouldn't worry if I were you.  I think I can safely say you will never have to deal with it as our predecessors did.

[hagoth7]

9 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Just a question Juliann..but a lot of years of gone by where we have had lessons on past prophets..why?  If one is only supposed to be accepting of the present prophet..why even study the past?

(I'm reasonably sure I'm not Juliann), but since a core intent of the Restoration is for each to become a prophet...that suggests a likely intent for studying the lives of past prophets.

Edited June 9, 2017 by hagoth7
quasi-apology for butting in

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

(I'm reasonably sure I'm not Juliann), but since a core intent of the Restoration is for each to become a prophet...that suggests a likely intent for studying the lives of past prophets.

Oooo..okay.  A prophet I am not..nor would want to be..thanks!!

[Traela]

17 hours ago, JulieM said:

Here are more statements on this from past leaders:

(Were these leaders speculating or wrong?)

- “We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in the pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds” (Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – as they affect the church,” August 27, 1954, p. 11).

- “NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:65-66. )

- “Why is it in this Church we do not grant the priesthood to the Negroes? It is alleged that the Prophet Joseph said—and I have no reason to dispute it—that it is because of some act committed by them before they came into this life. It is alleged that they were neutral, standing neither for Christ nor the devil. But, I am convinced it is because of some things they did before they came into this life that they have been denied the privilege. The races of today are very largely reaping the consequences of a previous life” (Sermons and Missionary Service of Melvin J. Ballard, p. 248

- “The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom. What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, ‘Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.’I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven.  (George F. Richards, Conference Reports, April 1939, pp. 58-59).l

 

 

I believe the basic doctrine- that what we did in the pre-existence affects our station in this life- is correct.  However, I don't think some of those early authorities really thought it through.  It seems unlikely to me that fence-sitters in Heaven would become incredibly stalwart Christians, Mormons or otherwise, in this life, which is what happened.  A better explanation is that God chose spirits that were strong enough to stay faithful, even under conditions of slavery and racism.  Plus, I believe the idea that God saved His best spirits for the Last Days predates 1978.  To me at least it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to simultaneously save the strongest warriors and the weakest ones for the final battle.

 

[Duncan]

17 hours ago, JulieM said:

Here are more statements on this from past leaders:

(Were these leaders speculating or wrong?)

- “We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in the pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds” (Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – as they affect the church,” August 27, 1954, p. 11).

- “NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:65-66. )

- “Why is it in this Church we do not grant the priesthood to the Negroes? It is alleged that the Prophet Joseph said—and I have no reason to dispute it—that it is because of some act committed by them before they came into this life. It is alleged that they were neutral, standing neither for Christ nor the devil. But, I am convinced it is because of some things they did before they came into this life that they have been denied the privilege. The races of today are very largely reaping the consequences of a previous life” (Sermons and Missionary Service of Melvin J. Ballard, p. 248

- “The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom. What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, ‘Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.’I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven.  (George F. Richards, Conference Reports, April 1939, pp. 58-59).l

 

 

I did a search and then Elder Heber J. Grant and Elder Matthias F. Cowley used stronger language than that, just on the "N" word. I recall hearing a audio of a talk from Pres. Lee in the early 1970's saying that word also

[juliann]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What was disavowed before the essay?  The racial aspect?  Sure.

But there is no authoritative position (and certainly none that coincides with scripture) that teaches that our pre mortal actions had no effect on our mortal birth situations.

In fact I consider it the height of foolishness to suppose that this life effects our next one, but our past life had no effect on this one.

And as for polygamy, I wouldn't worry if I were you.  I think I can safely say you will never have to deal with it as our predecessors did.

Oh, I don't think Elder Holland is too foolish...http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Quote

 

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. 

 

Now unless you are going to argue that he really meant to say that "we can make sure that nothing of that is declared....unless it is about white folk" I think the burden is on you to prove differently. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Oh, I don't think Elder Holland is too foolish...http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

What is the folklore, quite specifically?
 

Quote

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils.

Now unless you are going to argue that he really meant to say that "we can make sure that nothing of that is declared....unless it is about white folk" I think the burden is on you to prove differently. 

Maybe not foolish, but wrong.
Why do I think our premortal actions affect our birth situation:

• Abraham 3:22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
  23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
• Alma 13:3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
• D&C 138:53 The Prophet Joseph Smith, and my father, Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and other choice spirits who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times to take part in laying the foundations of the great latter-day work,
  54 Including the building of the temples and the performance of ordinances therein for the redemption of the dead, were also in the spirit world.
  55 I observed that they were also among the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God.

I say again, it is foolish to think our premortal lives didn't impact how we are born here.

 

[Rain]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe not foolish, but wrong.
Why do I think our premortal actions affect our birth situation:

• Abraham 3:22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
  23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
• Alma 13:3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
• D&C 138:53 The Prophet Joseph Smith, and my father, Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and other choice spirits who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times to take part in laying the foundations of the great latter-day work,
  54 Including the building of the temples and the performance of ordinances therein for the redemption of the dead, were also in the spirit world.
  55 I observed that they were also among the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God.

I say again, it is foolish to think our premortal lives didn't impact how we are born here.

 

I have to agree with this.

The problem comes when people assume that specific circumstances came because of actions in the past life for all who are in a set of circumstances (people are black because they were fence sitters.) I find that Heavenly Father is much more personal than that. One child may be placed in a strong, LDS family because God knew that child needed every last bit of help to get that child to come back to Him. Another child might be placed in the same family because they might have the means to help that child be a world leader or even to help the first child. Some of these reasons may be found as revelation in patriarchal blessings.

 

[mnn727]

On 6/8/2017 at 6:49 PM, boblloyd91 said:

Well I like my ears quite a bit, I guess a lesson about being grateful for them could do a bit of good lol

My wife taught Sunbeams for a while and while privately I joked about the lessons, she was able to make complete lessons out of them.

[Rain]

I taught Sunbeams for awhile.  I almost always added a walk to the lessson. It helps children pay better attention, but also helps kinesthetic learners.  Sometimes we went listening for what we could hear.  Sometimes we delivered a card to the bishop.  

Edited June 11, 2017 by Rain

[mikegriffith1]

On 6/5/2017 at 2:08 PM, Tacenda said:

Oh, if this is so, I'm going back to church, I've been inactive for a little over a month or so. I'd like to see RS be able to teach their own lessons. And the SS offering a class on the church essays, sign me up and I'd even sit on the front row!

In other words, as long as you like the RS and SS lessons, you'll attend church? I think I understand why you have gone inactive.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, mikegriffith1 said:

In other words, as long as you like the RS and SS lessons, you'll attend church? I think I understand why you have gone inactive.

Yes, I probably wouldn't be going for the right reasons. I admit.

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, I probably wouldn't be going for the right reasons. I admit.

People attend Church for lots of reasons.
But the only one that matters is because you believe it is Christ's Church and you want to be his follower.

All other reasons are secondary.

[JulieM]

7 hours ago, mikegriffith1 said:

In other words, as long as you like the RS and SS lessons, you'll attend church? I think I understand why you have gone inactive.

Why would you judge why someone attends?  I know members who attend for all different reasons (family, community, love of Christ's teachings and so on).  IMO, there is no wrong reason to attend if that person is finding what they need, learning and finding answers, or feeling love and support.  

Edited June 11, 2017 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Why would you judge why someone attends?  I know members who attend for all different reasons (family, community, love of Christ's teachings and so on).  IMO, there is no wrong reason to attend if that person is finding what they need, learning and finding answers, or feeling love and support.  

Exactly...and kudos to those who go and don't want to be there..how many of us do that?