The LDS Church, Charlottesville and continuing revelation

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:50 PM, BlueDreams said:

On the revelation bit, I think there's a few uses and forms of revelation represented in scripture. The one that your alluding to, it feels, is where new truths are given to the people. Obviously this does not fall under that category. Another form of revelation is giving needed direction specific to the time and challenges of the people. Often these aren't "new" per se, but are needed to steer people from temptations or societal pitfalls. You could state that these statements fit those. 

 

Sure....one's man's common sense is the Mormon Church's revelation.  I can see that.  But it also means any ol' message of common sense from any source is latter-day revelation.  Makes the Church's claim of exclusivity pretty empty.

When you talk about new truths, are you talking about the Book of Mormon?  Or scriptural revelations?  What revelation has come to the Church in recent decades for comparison? 

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Those monument commemorate slavery, and armed Rebellion against the US. Most were put up after 1915 to re-enforce the second class citizenship of blacks, and to remind them who was boss. I see some point in having a few in museums to remind generations of vileness of the Confederate cause.

I know what the monuments stand for..and I better understand now how people are feeling.  My only thought about all things coming down is that it won't change history...but will remind us of how far we have come..and a reflection of our mistakes in the past to learn from.  I am not disagreeing with anyone.  Not sure how I feel as I just love US history.  Maybe I am a little saddened because they are an art form too..What matters is what happens today..and tomorrow.  Hopefully we can get through the hate and remind ourselves that what was created was a Union.  I do wonder and hope that others don't believe that whites are all evil.  Sometimes I feel that way and it is so not true.

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Jeanne

[Storm Rider]

32 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I know what the monuments stand for..and I better understand now how people are feeling.  My only thought about all things coming down is that it won't change history...but will remind us of how far we have come..and a reflection of our mistakes in the past to learn from.  I am not disagreeing with anyone.  Not sure how I feel as I just love US history.  Maybe I am a little saddened because they are an art form too..What matters is what happens today..and tomorrow.  Hopefully we can get through the hate and remind ourselves that what was created was a Union.  I do wonder and hope that others don't believe that whites are all evil.  Sometimes I feel that way and it is so not true.

 

Jeanne, I appreciate your hopefulness and I admire it.  I think it is a way of being that we are taught to achieve.  For me I think I can be hopeful about some things and then at other times the reality of mortal existence overwhelms hopefulness.  Such are the the small challenges of this life.  Cheers

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Sure....one's man's common sense is the Mormon Church's revelation.  I can see that.  But it also means any ol' message of common sense from any source is latter-day revelation.  Makes the Church's claim of exclusivity pretty empty.

When you talk about new truths, are you talking about the Book of Mormon?  Or scriptural revelations?  What revelation has come to the Church in recent decades for comparison? 

Common sense is arbitrary and really in the eye of the beholder. It can also be dead wrong. And for varying smaller subsections of the group, common sense can become irrelevant. This would be a perfect example of such a time and group. The point is to maintain a direction that is congruent with what God desires. 

New truths can be new scripture like the BoM. It can also include greater understanding of a principle, such as heaven having three degrees of glory and how one is placed there in the D&C. Most revelation in scripture isn't actually new truth for their era....moments of "new truths" are not super common. Look at the Book of Mormon, the old and/or new testament. There are periods of massive revelatory shifts, yes. They usually surround formative events (Christ's ministry in NT and BoM, Moses leading people out of egypt, Peter and the lot forming the church, etc). Then what follows is largely maintenance. The revelation given isn't ground breaking or revolutionary. It's just the truth repackaged to better meet the people where they're at that day. Or to correct something they were forgetting in the newest trend that generation.

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I know what the monuments stand for..and I better understand now how people are feeling.  My only thought about all things coming down is that it won't change history...but will remind us of how far we have come..and a reflection of our mistakes in the past to learn from.  I am not disagreeing with anyone.  Not sure how I feel as I just love US history.  Maybe I am a little saddened because they are an art form too..What matters is what happens today..and tomorrow.  Hopefully we can get through the hate and remind ourselves that what was created was a Union.  I do wonder and hope that others don't believe that whites are all evil.  Sometimes I feel that way and it is so not true.

 

You're welcome to be sad. I cannot come close to empathizing and I'm an artist. Art is a form of communicating and all they communicate to me is oppression and glorifying a way of life that was fueled by inequality and the assumption of inferiority of minorities. They are mistakes. So get rid of them from the public square and put them in museums where they belong. I know you're not disagreeing, I just find it a tad off-putting.   

Very very few minorities believe whites are all evil. Even though we can get frustrated with whites in general for varying reasons related to social structures and interactions. So you can stop feeling such.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited August 21, 2017 by BlueDreams

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Common sense is arbitrary and really in the eye of the beholder. It can also be dead wrong.

That's why I said one man's common sense. 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 And for varying smaller subsections of the group, common sense can become irrelevant. This would be a perfect example of such a time and group. The point is to maintain a direction that is congruent with what God desires. 

I guess.  But if someone says, "God's direction is this way".  When everyone save for a few are already heading that way, whose revelation are we talking about?  Those who were already heading that way, or those who said it? 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

New truths can be new scripture like the BoM. It can also include greater understanding of a principle, such as heaven having three degrees of glory and how one is placed there in the D&C. Most revelation in scripture isn't actually new truth for their era....moments of "new truths" are not super common. Look at the Book of Mormon, the old and/or new testament. There are periods of massive revelatory shifts, yes. They usually surround formative events (Christ's ministry in NT and BoM, Moses leading people out of egypt, Peter and the lot forming the church, etc). Then what follows is largely maintenance. The revelation given isn't ground breaking or revolutionary. It's just the truth repackaged to better meet the people where they're at that day. Or to correct something they were forgetting in the newest trend that generation.

With luv,

BD

Nothing? 

[BlueDreams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

That's why I said one man's common sense. 

I guess.  But if someone says, "God's direction is this way".  When everyone save for a few are already heading that way, whose revelation are we talking about?  Those who were already heading that way, or those who said it? 

Nothing? 

Christ goes after the 1. I would expect his witnesses to do the same when needed. I don't get your second question. 

Where SSM stands in the church could be considered new since at no other time such an issue really even existed for any church era. Obviously you would disagree whether it's correct. But that's beside the point. 

 

With luv,

BD

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Sure....one's man's common sense is the Mormon Church's revelation.  I can see that.  But it also means any ol' message of common sense from any source is latter-day revelation.  Makes the Church's claim of exclusivity pretty empty.

When you talk about new truths, are you talking about the Book of Mormon?  Or scriptural revelations?  What revelation has come to the Church in recent decades for comparison? 

The "Mormon Church" is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Which you say you are a member of.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't claim exclusivity to revelation. 

OD 2, Declaration on the Family. to name but two.

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

You're welcome to be sad. I cannot come close to empathizing and I'm an artist. Art is a form of communicating and all they communicate to me is oppression and glorifying a way of life that was fueled by inequality and the assumption of inferiority of minorities. They are mistakes. So get rid of them from the public square and put them in museums where they belong. I know you're not disagreeing, I just find it a tad off-putting.   

Very very few minorities believe whites are all evil. Even though we can get frustrated with whites in general for varying reasons related to social structures and interactions. So you can stop feeling such.

 

With luv,

BD 

Thank you for your thoughts and understanding/empathy.  Frustration..I hear you!  I also admire and think very highly of your personal integrity and intelligence in all those things you believe.  I don't mean to be off putting..I am trying to sort our my own thoughts and feelings too.  Personally, I am just plain scared.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Jeanne

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Christ goes after the 1. I would expect his witnesses to do the same when needed. I don't get your second question. 

Where SSM stands in the church could be considered new since at no other time such an issue really even existed for any church era. Obviously you would disagree whether it's correct. But that's beside the point. 

 

With luv,

BD

Whatever the case, I'd say it's clear, then that continuing revelation is not unique to Mormonism, if revelation is defined as such.  Not a big deal, because I do think God is an inspirer of all. 

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The "Mormon Church" is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Which you say you are a member of.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't claim exclusivity to revelation. 

OD 2, Declaration on the Family. to name but two.

If there's no exclusive claim, then great.  All revelation should be accepted. 

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I know what the monuments stand for..and I better understand now how people are feeling.  My only thought about all things coming down is that it won't change history...but will remind us of how far we have come..and a reflection of our mistakes in the past to learn from.  I am not disagreeing with anyone.  Not sure how I feel as I just love US history.  Maybe I am a little saddened because they are an art form too..What matters is what happens today..and tomorrow.  Hopefully we can get through the hate and remind ourselves that what was created was a Union.  I do wonder and hope that others don't believe that whites are all evil.  Sometimes I feel that way and it is so not true.

 

I  have no problem with hating the southern cause of the bloodiest war in American history. One that killed more Americans than every other war the US has fought in combined until about half way through the Vietnam War.

I'm an amateur history buff. I love studying our history, but have no love for some of the things done in it.

Keep a few in museums as a reminder.

Anyone who hates someone because of their skin pigmentation is deplorable .

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

If there's no exclusive claim, then great.  All revelation should be accepted. 

I have no problem with that. We just have to determine what is revelation, and what gets put in Church canon.

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I  have no problem with hating the southern cause of the bloodiest war in American history. One that killed more Americans than every other war the US has fought in combined until about half way through the Vietnam War.

I'm an amateur history buff. I love studying our history, but have no love for some of the things done in it.

Keep a few in museums as a reminder.

Anyone who hates someone because of their skin pigmentation is deplorable .

I agree...and sad that somehow it remains in this century in many forms.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

"Storm" is a term used in two major neonazi website. I wonder if that's significant here?

If serious, I think not.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I  have no problem with hating the southern cause of the bloodiest war in American history. One that killed more Americans than every other war the US has fought in combined until about half way through the Vietnam War.

I'm an amateur history buff. I love studying our history, but have no love for some of the things done in it.

Keep a few in museums as a reminder.

Anyone who hates someone because of their skin pigmentation is deplorable .

It was my understanding that hating anyone for anything is against the teachings of Jesus Christ.  I see no reason to elevate one form of hate over another as if to make hating one type of child of God is different from hating another child of God.  It may make individuals feel morally superior to worship at the golden calf of the day, but in the end hate, for whatever the reason, is wrong.  

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It was my understanding that hating anyone for anything is against the teachings of Jesus Christ.  I see no reason to elevate one form of hate over another as if to make hating one type of child of God is different from hating another child of God.  It may make individuals feel morally superior to worship at the golden calf of the day, but in the end hate, for whatever the reason, is wrong.  

No, hate has a valuable purpose. We should hate sin. I can feel pity for Nazis (and if you look at pictures from Charlottesville they need pity, I mean look at those fugly morons) and not hate them while hating what they stand for.

Last time we got a big group of Americans together to deal with Nazis we called them "The Greatest Generation". Now we have angry people on the streets out there demonstrating because they believe Nazis are bad (this did not used to be a contentious point) and you make them out to be the equivalent of Nazis.

The gospel does not say we need to be nice to Nazis. Hope for their redemption and healing? yes. Pity their wretched state? Definitely. Say that the abhorrently wicked are as good as everyone else? No.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I  have no problem with hating the southern cause of the bloodiest war in American history. One that killed more Americans than every other war the US has fought in combined until about half way through the Vietnam War.

I'm an amateur history buff. I love studying our history, but have no love for some of the things done in it.

Keep a few in museums as a reminder.

Anyone who hates someone because of their skin pigmentation is deplorable .

Yeah, also look at the history of these landmarks. Almost all were sponsored by abhorrent organizations dedicated to glorifying the Confederate cause and rewriting it as about something other then a desire to follow the Mahanite principle of Cain in converting the lives of fellow humans into property and profit.

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It was my understanding that hating anyone for anything is against the teachings of Jesus Christ.  I see no reason to elevate one form of hate over another as if to make hating one type of child of God is different from hating another child of God.  It may make individuals feel morally superior to worship at the golden calf of the day, but in the end hate, for whatever the reason, is wrong.  

I said I hate the "southern cause". The cause was the supposed superiority of whites, and the willingness to go to war against their fellow citizens to keep slaves. We fought a War in Heaven to keep from being slaves to Satan. Satan just took it here.

[clarkgoble]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, also look at the history of these landmarks. Almost all were sponsored by abhorrent organizations dedicated to glorifying the Confederate cause and rewriting it as about something other then a desire to follow the Mahanite principle of Cain in converting the lives of fellow humans into property and profit.

Yup. I think it should be a local issue. But most of the monuments were raised in the 20th century either as part of the rise of Jim Crow or as a way of expressing opposition to the Civil Rights movement. It's telling how few statues there are for freed slaves or northern heroes. That they are dominated by Confederate figures is telling.

[Tacenda]

On 8/21/2017 at 8:17 AM, Jeanne said:

I know what the monuments stand for..and I better understand now how people are feeling.  My only thought about all things coming down is that it won't change history...but will remind us of how far we have come..and a reflection of our mistakes in the past to learn from.  I am not disagreeing with anyone.  Not sure how I feel as I just love US history.  Maybe I am a little saddened because they are an art form too..What matters is what happens today..and tomorrow.  Hopefully we can get through the hate and remind ourselves that what was created was a Union.  I do wonder and hope that others don't believe that whites are all evil.  Sometimes I feel that way and it is so not true.

 

I'm torn about taking statues down. Maybe keep them up and then tell the whole story? Or have more statues of slaves and their story? It does feel a little "1984"ish to take everything down as if it didn't occur. 

Sad I didn't know about our founding fathers use of slaves to the extent they did. Such as hearing recently one of them received a slave as a birthday gift. 

Sometimes I wish I was born in another country. That's not very American of me I know.

[BlueDreams]

On 8/21/2017 at 11:05 AM, stemelbow said:

Whatever the case, I'd say it's clear, then that continuing revelation is not unique to Mormonism, if revelation is defined as such.  Not a big deal, because I do think God is an inspirer of all. 

Why would revelation be unique to mormons? Believing that all have access to revelation/inspiration is not in opposition to them being prophets called from God in this dispensation. 

 

With luv,

BD

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm torn about taking statues down. Maybe keep them up and then tell the whole story? Or have more statues of slaves and their story? It does feel a little "1984"ish to take everything down as if it didn't occur. 

Sad I didn't know about our founding fathers use of slaves to the extent they did. Such as hearing recently one of them received a slave as a birthday gift. 

Sometimes I wish I was born in another country. That's not very American of me I know.

1984 is burning all the records. No one is suggesting we stop teaching about the Civil War or pretend it never happened.

[stemelbow]

59 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Why would revelation be unique to mormons? Believing that all have access to revelation/inspiration is not in opposition to them being prophets called from God in this dispensation. 

 

With luv,

BD

That's my point.  Continuing revelation isn't unique to the Church at all, particularly when what is called revelation is just common sense to most in the world.  Sadly, on the grounds of common sensical statements the Church has claimed a unique flow of continuous revelation. 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm torn about taking statues down. Maybe keep them up and then tell the whole story? Or have more statues of slaves and their story? It does feel a little "1984"ish to take everything down as if it didn't occur. 

Sad I didn't know about our founding fathers use of slaves to the extent they did. Such as hearing recently one of them received a slave as a birthday gift. 

Sometimes I wish I was born in another country. That's not very American of me I know.

There are things called history books, I don't need hundreds of Confederate monuments glorifying the US Civil War to know about it. 

Depends on the Founders you're talking about. As far as Presidents go. Of the first 12 Presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams never owned slaves. Benjamin Franklin released his two slaves just after the Revolution.

The Founders didn't like slavery. They just didn't know of a way to get rid of it.

SEE http://www.revolutionary-war.net/slavery-and-the-founding-fathers.html

I'm proud to be an American and have served in its military. I think we should learn from our history's mistakes so we don't repeat its tragedies.