Suggestions for improving race relations in the Church

[Darren10]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

Leaders of that group were approved by the First Presidency. I was told the story by one of them. That has everything to do with the restored gospel. Your third sentence is really, really offensive. I'm sure you didn't mean it to be but we all have a duty to overcome racism, and the first is to become more aware of the language we use.

"Leaders of that group were approved by the First Presidency. I was told the story by one of them." - That's on their website as well. I absolutely believe there was divine inspiration to form them and in what the currently do. But there is no divine inspiration to make them an official auxiliary group within the church in which to seat them up with the General Authorities; and frankly I see no need for them to be. Let them continue with what they do as the are currently doing it.

"Your third sentence is really, really offensive. "

Then don't let it be. I've outlined quite clearly what I think the restored gospel is about: that means bringing souls to Christ. Yes, racism naturally impedes one coming closer to Christ and so, yes, we have a duty to overcome it. But every imperfection impedes our coming to Christ. That does not mean that everything countermeasure has to become an auxiliary organization of the Church. I have praised the Genesis Group for years as well as source them towards anti-Mormons  who use the race card against the Church. I just don't see them as a group which is absolutely needed to incorporate within the Church as an official auxiliary.

[Darren10]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

Do you know anything about the Genesis group at all?

I've read their website for years, so, yes, a little bit I'd say.

[Darren10]

On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 11:39 PM, BlueDreams said:

Lastly, I would LOVE to see the Genesis choir perform at GC. That would be so awesome! 

 

With luv,

BD

That would be absolutely delightful!

Edited June 10, 2017 by Darren10

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

This list has items that I can fully support, and others that I have varying degrees of disagreement... i.e.:

2) I too get tired of seeing Jesus portrayed as a white European type... He was a Middle Eastern Jew, and would have been of a darker complexion with brown eyes and black hair.  Therefore I don't believe it would be any more appropriate to portray him as black or any other type, including as white.

3) Members of highly visible leadership positions should be chosen by the Spirit, not because they are of a particular race...

4) The Church has already repudiated and apologized for the ban via Appostle Bruce R. McConkie... a repudiation reaffirmed subsequently in various forms in ensuing years... now it is up to us to live accordingly in our interactions with not only blacks but all races...

9) Bring more blacks into Church-owned BYU as students or faculty??  As I recall this was called "affirmative action" years ago when I was part of the Calif universities system... a practice eventually disbanded system-wide and beyond based on several factors... there was also a reverse discrimination lawsuit brought against the univ by a student trying to get into medical school after he was bypassed for one of the few open slots available in favor of a less qualified minority (black) student ... he won (I believe it went to the Calif Supreme Court)... I believe students should be admitted based on admission standards applicable to all students, not just for blacks... and faculty chosen based on their ability and experience...  and as far as I know, this is the practice today...

12) Again, members of the MoTab choir are chosen in an audition process and based on ability... which is as it should be.  All are invited to attend auditions... 

GG

 

I agree with everything in this post except the part about the Church repudiating and apologizing for the ban through Bruce R. McConkie. I don't agree that's what he did. What he said, as I recall, was to forget everything he and everyone else had said that was contrary to the June 1978 revelation. The revelation itself did not apologize for the ban. It only said the time had come to end it. 

Edited June 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with everything in this post except the part about the Church repudiating and apologizing for the ban through Bruce R. McConkie. I don't agree that's what he did. What he said, as I recall, was to forget everything he and everyone else had said that was contrary to the June 1978 revelation. The revelation itself did not apologize for the ban. It only said the time had come to end it. 

Wishful thinking is one of the arch enemies of critical thinking and sound analysis. It's wishful thinking that causes some people to see In McConkie's remarks and in the essay on the priesthood ban things that aren't actually there. 

Edited June 10, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Jeanne]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

Leaders of that group were approved by the First Presidency. I was told the story by one of them. That has everything to do with the restored gospel. Your third sentence is really, really offensive. I'm sure you didn't mean it to be but we all have a duty to overcome racism, and the first is to become more aware of the language we use.

Yeah that 3rd sentence sounded really off.  I have finished reading this thread...then re-read this post.  There is sort of an arrogance there that is hard to define. 

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Wishful thinking is one of the arch enemies of critical thinking and sound analysis. It's wishful thinking that causes some people to see In McConkie's remarks and in the essay on the priesthood ban things that aren't actually there. 

Agreed. And I appreciate your capacity for sound analysis, Bobbieaware.

[carbon dioxide]

" Use more African-American faces in church art and manuals and display more artwork depicting Christ as he would appear: as a Middle Eastern Jewish man."

 

What exactly does a Middle Eastern Jewish man of 2000 years ago look like.  Then add the unique issue with Jesus.  If Jesus did not have a human father and one appearance is based heavily on genetics, what would Jesus really look like since half of his DNA is not from a Middle Eastern source? 

[Gillebre]

On my mission I was able to talk with a man, one that previous missionaries had talked to at one point or another, and it was quite interesting. He was black, and he told me that he always would ask visiting members or missionaries about the Priesthood ban. He said that they would hem, haw, and say they'd look into it and get back to him, but none ever did. He asked me if I would be willing to share with him my thoughts about it, discuss it with him, and I agreed.

The substance of my belief and understanding on the matter, which is something I've studied and reflected on a lot, is that it came down to what God's children were ready to receive. Our Heavenly Father is deeply aware of what we, both as individuals and as a larger people, can and cannot handle. He knows what we're ready for and what would be too much for us. I believe that there are principles of truth, whether entirely new or just added facets to what we already possess, that we are not ready for at this stage of our progress and growth. I think that there are situations where the Lord will not reveal certain things to us because we're not sufficiently prepared to accept and honor what He intends for us to have. Consider the law of consecration: we are commanded presently to tithe, and to prepare ourselves through willingness to be ready to live fully consecrated lives, both temporally and spiritually, when the time comes that the law of consecration is in full effect.

The pure truth is that skin color bears no consequence on God's love, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, or the expectations that are placed upon us as members of His Church, in my opinion. He came to rescue each of us and His love doesn't change. Yet the people lived for many decades, centuries even, with the entirely false concept that skin color mattered, that one's worth was affected by it. No grand manifestation from Heaven is going to erase years upon years of culture and ingrained beliefs (however wrong they are). Such changes take time, and when He saw that we were prepared sufficiently, the inspired changes were revealed and implemented as a more fully binding expectation. Before that time of course the truth was still there that all human beings were His children, created in His image, yet those persistent elements of society and culture which said that your race (or even your sex) didn't just go away.

Ultimately this man that I was talking to as a missionary accepted my answer as something that could understand. God loves us enough to know when we aren't ready for certain things He wants us to eventually have. He will wait patiently as the Holy Ghost and the Angels minister to us and help soften our hearts day by day until we're eventually humble enough to embrace the purest and complete truths. He's always with us, and hearts change one at a time. This culture is being purified, and though it's taking years, decades or longer to happen, it most definitely will.

I hope that something I've said was helpful.

[MiserereNobis]

24 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

Yet the people lived for many decades, centuries even, with the entirely false concept that skin color mattered, that one's worth was affected by it. No grand manifestation from Heaven is going to erase years upon years of culture and ingrained beliefs (however wrong they are). Such changes take time, and when He saw that we were prepared sufficiently, the inspired changes were revealed and implemented as a more fully binding expectation.

I guess my problem with this is that the priesthood ban seems to have perpetuated the belief that those of African descent were less worthy.  It wasn't the LDS church that changed society to accept blacks as equals; it was society that changed, and the LDS church was slow to follow (1978 is quite late in the civil rights game).

Also, can you clarify who the "we" is that needed to be prepared sufficiently?  Is it white LDS members?  If so, it's a tough sell to black people to tell them that they cannot be treated equally because the whites aren't ready for them to be treated equally.  I think it is even worse if the "we" is the black LDS members, because then you have entered racist condescension by telling them that they are not ready for what whites get because they are black.

Finally, I have a hard time with God operating the way your explanation goes.  The underlying principle seems to be that if the overwhelming ideas of society are wrong, God will go along with them because it would be too hard for His followers otherwise.  That makes God's morality dependent upon society's ills.

[Calm]

Not needed...

Edited June 11, 2017 by Calm

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I guess my problem with this is that the priesthood ban seems to have perpetuated the belief that those of African descent were less worthy.  It wasn't the LDS church that changed society to accept blacks as equals; it was society that changed, and the LDS church was slow to follow (1978 is quite late in the civil rights game).

Also, can you clarify who the "we" is that needed to be prepared sufficiently?  Is it white LDS members?  If so, it's a tough sell to black people to tell them that they cannot be treated equally because the whites aren't ready for them to be treated equally.  I think it is even worse if the "we" is the black LDS members, because then you have entered racist condescension by telling them that they are not ready for what whites get because they are black.

Finally, I have a hard time with God operating the way your explanation goes.  The underlying principle seems to be that if the overwhelming ideas of society are wrong, God will go along with them because it would be too hard for His followers otherwise.  That makes God's morality dependent upon society's ills.

2

On the contrary, God has been seen to operate in this way. He raised up a chosen people that had a highly select priesthood.  And so select were they that no amount of righteousness would suffice anyone who was not born into the proper lineage could minister the ordinances of God, let alone any Gentiles. When Jesus was in mortality he had nothing to do with Gentiles, unless it was something he could not avoid.  He did not send missionaries to the Gentiles and specifically forbade his apostles from proselyting them (Matt 10:5,6).  When a Greek woman came to him for help with her daughter having an "unclean spirit", Jesus initially refused to act on her behalf, and just because she was a Gentile (Mark 7:27,28).  He even compared her to a dog -- not because she barked and panted with her tongue out, but because she was a Gentile.  Question: was Jesus actively excluding Gentiles because it was not yet their time to receive the gospel, or because his chosen people would have a hard time accepting Gentiles?

It wasn't until after Jesus' resurrection that the gospel was opened up for all.  And getting the Jewish Christians to accept Gentiles on an equal footing was like pulling teeth.  There was a great controversy over it, in fact.  Now, I have no sure conviction one way or the other about whether the LDS priesthood restriction was something commanded by God, or something merely allowed by God because of the hardness of his people's hearts.  When I think upon the difficulty in the Primitive church of getting the Jewish Christians (who were in the majority at the time) to accept Gentile converts, and then there was St. Peter's dramatic vision on the rooftop (Acts 10), I now strongly suspect that the 1978 revelation was an example of the latter -- namely God, having permitted something because his people couldn't deal with it yet, but now they were finally ready.  In that sense it may very well be that the Civil Rights Movement was something that God inspired partly as a way to get his Church over the hump of their own prejudice.  But however that shakes out, it is clear to me that God was directly involved in the 1978 revelation removing that restriction -- which leads me to consider it unimportant whether the restriction was commanded by God or merely permitted.  If there had been a problem, then God corrected it.  If God wanted it that way in the first place, well then, who are we to complain?  

But of course, you have a hard time believing God having anything to do with it!  If you believed otherwise, you'd be a Latter-day Saint.

As for the general topic, I'd say that the need for overcoming racism is not something that can be laid solely at the door of the Latter-day Saints.  Who was the first black cardinal, and when was he raised to the Cardinalate?  This was Laurean Rugambwa, and it wasn't until 1960 that he was appointed a cardinal.  And how many black Catholics have there been in the world?  I've heard that black Catholics represent 25% of the RCC total population, which kind of calculate out to 270 million, and how many years did it take before there was a black cardinal?  Was this because God didn't want any black cardinals, or because the general population of Catholics weren't ready for a black cardinal?  I'm sure I don't know, nor would I like to hazard a guess.  But perhaps you might?

 

[CV75]

18 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I will appriciate if anyone here can tell me what took the church so long to "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."

Please 

and please don't tell me it was because of the culture, in today's culture alcohol, sex before marriage, gambling are generally accepted.  In Old Testament times idolatry was a common practice, but God was quick to condenm it.  

We don’t know. But in this month’s Ensign, Elder Oaks taught, “Unique to our doctrine is our knowledge that God continues to call prophets and apostles to receive revelation and teach how to apply His commandments in the circumstances of our day.” Removing the ban may have something to do with that.

I think it has to be remembered that the restoration is rolling forth and things happen a bit at a time, and much of it is impacted by circumstances. This is reflected in how the Church functions differently in a branch verses a ward, a district versus a stake, in nations where civil marriage must preceded the temple sealing, and in other ways according to how the Church is able to function only partially in various countries, etc.

We know that revelation sometimes comes gradually as a dawning, and this may well be the case for lifting the ban.

Another perspective might be offered in the Revelations in Context article on the Word of Wisdom. It explains how there was a dawning of awareness that made its way into the practical expression of the Restored Gospel by way of revelation from the Lord to His servant. The BSA is another example, where the prophet is inspired to adopt and youth development practices from the outside in connection with priesthood responsibilities.

While the underlying principle is the same, I think a lot of our circumstances are far more complicated than temperance was and its influence on the Word of Wisdom. While the lifting of the ban had as much to do with it being the time for global expansion, expanding racial tolerance in the USA may have had something to do with it. But racism, bigotry and human trafficking continue to persist throughout the world.

Things like idolatry and immoral behavior are practices that God has forbidden by commandment. Racism and tolerance on the other hand are not practices but culturally-derived beliefs and attitudes that are respectively antithetical and congruent with the light of Gospel. For example, racism is a reflection of ignorance and pride. Tolerance is a reflection of love and understanding. The commandments have always had the attitudinal component of charity entailed in them.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with everything in this post except the part about the Church repudiating and apologizing for the ban through Bruce R. McConkie. I don't agree that's what he did. What he said, as I recall, was to forget everything he and everyone else had said that was contrary to the June 1978 revelation. The revelation itself did not apologize for the ban. It only said the time had come to end it. 

Apology is a funny thing. I’m doing it all the time, but when I look back at Paul for example, I don’t see him apologizing to the Christians he persecuted when he went by “Saul” and no one apologized to him for being wary of him when he converted. Peter didn’t apologize for being slower than Paul to change his attitude toward the gentiles, there was no apology issued from the Church, and Paul did not demand it of him.

Maybe that was a cultural thing or perhaps such evidence is simply not available in the scriptural record, but I think there was so much gratitude for the triumph of truth, and investment in its preservation, that apology was the last thing on anyone’s mind. That is what happens when you see a great light and become a new creature. And for those that did not rejoice with the saints, the lack of an apology wasn’t the deal-breaker.

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for the general topic, I'd say that the need for overcoming racism is not something that can be laid solely at the door of the Latter-day Saints.  Who was the first black cardinal, and when was he raised to the Cardinalate?  This was Laurean Rugambwa, and it wasn't until 1960 that he was appointed a cardinal.  And how many black Catholics have there been in the world?  I've heard that black Catholics represent 25% of the RCC total population, which kind of calculate out to 270 million, and how many years did it take before there was a black cardinal?  Was this because God didn't want any black cardinals, or because the general population of Catholics weren't ready for a black cardinal?  I'm sure I don't know, nor would I like to hazard a guess.  But perhaps you might?

There have been 3 African Popes and they have all been sainted:  Pope Saint Victor I, reigned 186-197 and declared the timing of Easter, Pope Saint Militiades, reigned 311-314, and Pope Saint Gelasius I, reigned 492-496 declared February 14 as Valentine's Day.  These Popes were from North Africa, so the color of their skin is questionable.

Now, to the greater issue of God's will and racism.  I don't think you can compare racism in Catholicism to the racism of the priesthood ban.  In Catholicism we don't believe that everything that the Pope does is God's will.  If a Pope had racist views, that doesn't mean it is God.  In other words, we wouldn't have to defend God as being racist, but simply dismiss the Pope as being racist.  We don't hang our truth claims on the perfection of the Pope.  We have had some terrible Popes morally speaking and while it is not a good thing, within our theology it doesn't affect the Pope's authority.  So, for example, the treatment of Natives and others by Catholics can be fully condemned without it being a wholesale condemnation of Catholicism (see Pope Francis's apology to Natives).  I think this is harder to do in Mormonism, because as it appears to me the LDS closely link the authority of the Prophet with moral perfection.  So, a morally bad prophet would be a major issue for Mormonism.  Perhaps this is why it seems like people have a hard time with the controversial aspects of LDS history (Joseph Smith's polygamy, priesthood ban, etc) because they feel like it calls into question the issue of LDS authority.  I can point to some Pope's decisions and say that was the result of moral imperfection and was wrong and not God's will.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would be quite hard for a devout Mormon to point to the priesthood ban and say that it was the result of Brigham Young's racism, it was wrong, and it was not God's will.  Hence the explanation as to why God willed it.

I probably shouldn't get too deeply involved in this conversation because the reasoning for the priesthood ban is mainly an internal LDS matter.  As you pointed out, if I believed that there was authority in the LDS priesthood, then I would be LDS, too

I do, however, wish you all success in trying to work through the difficult issues.  There are things that are hard for me in Catholicism and working with them helps me with humility and faith, which is the golden road to God, and I wish for all to be closer to God, especially my LDS friends here

 

[MormonVideoGame]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't think you can compare racism in Catholicism to the racism of the priesthood ban.  In Catholicism we don't believe that everything that the Pope does is God's will.  If a Pope had racist views, that doesn't mean it is God.  In other words, we wouldn't have to defend God as being racist, but simply dismiss the Pope as being racist.  We don't hang our truth claims on the perfection of the Pope.  We have had some terrible Popes morally speaking and while it is not a good thing, within our theology it doesn't affect the Pope's authority.  So, for example, the treatment of Natives and others by Catholics can be fully condemned without it being a wholesale condemnation of Catholicism (see Pope Francis's apology to Natives).  I think this is harder to do in Mormonism, because as it appears to me the LDS closely link the authority of the Prophet with moral perfection.  So, a morally bad prophet would be a major issue for Mormonism.

I am going to defend the LDS church. It is the same in Mormonism, Smith taught that "a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such".  I honestly don't find many racist teachings in church publications, most of them are in the Journal of Discourses which is currently not a publication of the LDS church, However, I don't know if the JofD was ever a church publication.    

In 2007 the church stated that church "doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith" 

When did the Catholic church define "doctrine"? How long did it take for the catholic church to state that holy tradition and scripture was the truth? 

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Things like idolatry and immoral behavior are practices that God has forbidden by commandment. Racism and tolerance on the other hand are not practices but culturally-derived beliefs and attitudes that are respectively antithetical and congruent with the light of Gospel. For example, racism is a reflection of ignorance and pride. Tolerance is a reflection of love and understanding. The commandments have always had the attitudinal component of charity entailed in them.

 

Idolatry is also a "culturally-derived belief". I am asking why the LDS church took so long to disavow "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"? 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Apology is a funny thing. I’m doing it all the time, but when I look back at Paul for example, I don’t see him apologizing to the Christians he persecuted when he went by “Saul” and no one apologized to him for being wary of him when he converted. Peter didn’t apologize for being slower than Paul to change his attitude toward the gentiles, there was no apology issued from the Church, and Paul did not demand it of him.

 

Maybe that was a cultural thing or perhaps such evidence is simply not available in the scriptural record, but I think there was so much gratitude for the triumph of truth, and investment in its preservation, that apology was the last thing on anyone’s mind. That is what happens when you see a great light and become a new creature. And for those that did not rejoice with the saints, the lack of an apology wasn’t the deal-breaker.

 

One thing Elder McConkie did say on that occasion was that he and others had spoken with limited light and understanding. Need one apologize for having behaved consistent with the light and understanding he possessed at the time? I'll admit I'm not certain. 

One lesson I hope we might have learned from the time prior to the 1978 revelation is the folly of engaging in conjecture as to why the Lord has or has not done something. Or the folly of expressing certitude in ignorance -- such as asserting the Church has repudiated the ban when in reality it has done no such thing. 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Quote

I think this is harder to do in Mormonism, because as it appears to me the LDS closely link the authority of the Prophet with moral perfection.  

In practice this is often done, in doctrine though no.

Quote

 

So, a morally bad prophet would be a major issue for Mormonism.

 

OTOH, a morally bad prophet (actively sins as opposed to a mostly moral or maybe even morally lukewarm man) would be seen as having lost his priesthood power, imo, and if he remained as President of the Church, that would be seen as a sign the Church was drifting into apostasy, imo.

However, I think the primary issue is whether something has been taught to be a revelation or not.  Members' views vary, but many see all revelations as the specific words of God.  The "thus saith the Lord" revelations are one of the reasons they reason this.

[Calm]

Quote

However, I don't know if the JofD was ever a church publication.

The JoD was not a magazine as we think of it or newspaper, but a collection of conference talks and other speeches.  Whether or not it was  an official church publication, if it was recorded accurately, many of these things were taught across the pulpit in the tabernacle.  One needs to identify where, when, and by whom the discourse was given and if it was reviewed afterwards by the person giving the talk...and then check other resources available to see if the transcription was accurate.

One of the transcribers (George Watts) has been discovered to have heavily edited talks, to make them sound more prophet like among other things.

So there are good reasons to be careful with the JoD, but one cannot, imo, just dismiss it outright if they are conference talks, imo.

 

Quote

 

The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.

The content of the Journal of Discourses was transcribed, sometimes inaccurately, and published between 1854 and 1886 in England. The compilation contains some statements of doctrine as well as other materials of interest to Latter-day Saints who lived far from the center of the Church, including speeches given for a variety of occasions, funeral addresses, reports from returning missionaries, prayers, and the proceedings of a trial. The Journal of Discourses was produced under the guidance of those who transcribed the materials, including George D. Watt, David W. Evans, and George W. Gibbs. Skilled in the use of shorthand, George D. Watt had transcribed many conferences and sermons for the Deseret News. He received little pay for his work. Since the Deseret News was not generally available outside of the United States, Watt proposed to Brigham Young the idea of publishing these materials on a subscription basis. Such a plan would make the materials available to more Saints and allow Watt to earn a living with his work. President Brigham Young supported the plan, and a letter from the First Presidency was included in the first volume encouraging Church members to cooperate in the “purchase and sale” of the journal. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine.

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

Quote

 

She emphasizes that Brigham Young was a powerful speaker. He cared about the people, and they knew that he cared about them. When George Watt changed Brigham Young’s words, he changed what Brigham Young said about himself. She feels the real Brigham Young has been lost to us as we view him through his discourses printed in the Journal of Discourses.

In her research, she discovered that the “one drop” phrase attributed to Brigham Young by Wilford Woodruff did not exist in the original shorthand transcription of George Watt and other issues relating to the priesthood and temple ban.

 

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2017/02/15/george-watt-journal-discourses

Edited June 11, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

I don't know why this picture makes me smile, but it seems appropriate given the discussion about art (PS...there has been no actual "flesh" color in crayolas since 1962 when they changed that color's label to "peach"):

Edited June 11, 2017 by Calm

[MormonVideoGame]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

The JoD was not a magazine or newspaper, but a collection of conference talks and other things.  Whether or not it was  an official church publication, if it was recorded accurately, many of these things were taught across the pulpit in the tabernacle.  One needs to identify where, when, and by whom the discourse was given and if it was reviewed afterwards by the person giving the talk...and then check other resources available to see if the transcription was accurate.

I understand. So when the JoD (a compilation of sermons and other materials) was created in volumes, was it published by the church? 

Never mind, let me read the stuff you quoted. 

Edited June 11, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Idolatry is also a "culturally-derived belief". I am asking why the LDS church took so long to disavow "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"? 

Idolatry is a practice, not a belief. No practitioner says, “I believe in idolatry.” He says, “I will worship this or that.” We are commanded not to do that, but even by common sense (intellect) on a cultural level and by conscience (human spirituality) we know better (Isaiah 44:13-20). Keeping the commandment not to practice idolatry raises everyone's intellect and spirituality, and in turn improves the culture.

As far as traditions and cultural attitudes go, that which may seem to be a long time to you may not be all that long to the Lord, or perhaps more practically speaking, for cultural change to take place. And as it does, the Lord guides his servants. Hopefully you too will have enough time in this life to become as perfect as you need to be.

For example, it took 100 years for the USA to advance from emancipation to civil rights, and the culture still has significant issues surrounding racism. I am personally astounded that it has persisted over the last 50+ years, and in my estimation gotten worse in some ways, in spite of all we have going for us. Globally, the ethnic bigotry that has gone on for millennia continues, and don’t think it doesn’t manifest itself in how the Church is growing or how the members treat each other and others in some places. Again from Elder Oak’s statement: as circumstances change over time—sometimes a long time—prophets and apostles receive revelation pertinent to our day.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One thing Elder McConkie did say on that occasion was that he and others had spoken with limited light and understanding. Need one apologize for having behaved consistent with the light and understanding he possessed at the time? I'll admit I'm not certain. 

One lesson I hope we might have learned from the time prior to the 1978 revelation is the folly of engaging in conjecture as to why the Lord has or has not done something. Or the folly of expressing certitude in ignorance -- such as asserting the Church has repudiated the ban when in reality it has done no such thing. 

Apology has its place between individuals, but I think giving an apology once everyone is finally equally enlightened can sometimes detract from all that needs to be attended to under a new set of societal / cultural circumstances and revelation. Who can expect to be owed anything for their offended spirit when they have already received the promise of eternal life in the Gospel message? Who can believe a messenger when the potential offense has greater power or precedence over his message than the Gospel, especially for those who do not need or expect an apology? Who would demand from the messengers more than the Lord would have them say? Do enlightened people (I’m not one, so I’m asking) really require an apology from someone who has recently seen the light? I think this is why the essay has an attitude for looking forward.

Once you beat the sword into a plowshare, 'nuff said!

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't know why this picture makes me smile, but it seems appropriate given the discussion about art (PS...there has been no actual "flesh" color in crayolas since 1962 when they changed that color's label to "peach"):

Such sweet memories. My mother, an artist, did not like the Flesh crayon and showed me how to blend colors to make my 5-year old drawings more authentic and creative (at the same time! Now that was a gift!). Same thing with Plasti-Goop and Creepy Crawlers, though the glow-in-the-dark quickly took precedence (our bedroom looked like a forensic black-light crime scene at night...!). Among the four living generations of my family, and an extra one that has passed on, all these tones are fairly represented!

Edited June 11, 2017 by CV75

[Darren10]

On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:51 PM, Jeanne said:

Yeah that 3rd sentence sounded really off.  I have finished reading this thread...then re-read this post.  There is sort of an arrogance there that is hard to define. 

XOXOXO!!!