Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. I believe there are people who are capable of living a higher law. Abraham and Alma talked about them.

That's interesting, Bernard.  I honestly hadn't thought about that.  I would tend to believe that a God is a God....none live higher laws than another, but maybe they don't all live identically.  

Either way though, what BY taught (regarding polygamy being necessary to become a God) has been changed to the teaching that we have a choice and can become a God without entering into polygamous relationships (current teaching).

Edited September 22, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

You do realize that other countries like Canada for example have had gay marriage for over a decade.   Is there something about American gay couples that compelled the church to introduce this policy?

You'll have to ask someone else that; I don't know.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You'll have to ask someone else that; I don't know.

Then why did you state earlier (regarding the need for a new policy) that: 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's because there hadn't been a need before then. SCOTUS hadn't redefined marriage before then.

Edited September 22, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see it as odd. They have flatly said the doctrine in that respect won't change. One can choose either to believe or disbelieve them. If you still think it might change, it amounts to disbelieving that statement.

 

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

A person can believe a leader is giving their honest opinions or beliefs or predictions and still believe that person may be mistaken. 

They did not express it as an opinion. It was expressed unequivocally as fact.

Quote

Leaders are not above making mistakes and are not infallible.  Each member is entitled to their own inspiration on these matters too.

Be that as it may, if you think they might be wrong, you are disbelieving what they have said as they expressed it.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about here.

The lowry nelson letters, first presidency response:

"From the days of Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the church leaders, that the Negroes, are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

Furthermore, your ideas, as I understand them, appear to contemplate, the intermarriage of the Negro and the White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant,  to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now, God's rule for Israel, His Chosen people, has been endogamous.  Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between white and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine."    -July 17, 1947, signed by President George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark Jr, David O McKay. 

The church fought against educators, academics, and historians to overthrow the legitimacy of Elijah Abel's ordination, fought against brown v. board of education, fought against loving v virginia, fought the bsa, fought against the NCAA, and also fought among itself on what was required to overthrow the racist doctrines in 1969.  

Then we have roy doxey's response to nelson in The nation paper, Randy Bott's debacle in 2012 - which reflects the views of his line leader, Robert Millet's horrible ideas in his 2004 book Getting at the Truth, Matt harris paper in JWH, Edward Kimball's byu studies paper, - any of this ringing a bell?  Mormons banned blacks from receiving eternal marriage, the highest exalting ordinances of endowment, eternal marriage for time and eternity, and second anointings until 1978.  The doctrinal change extended both forward and backwards on both sides of the veil, no proxy work for blacks or mixed ancestry dead was performed until 1978.   Eternal truths transcend time and culture, and extend into the future and into the deep past as we see and envision God. we're looking at the 40-year anniversary next year.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

They did not express it as an opinion. It was expressed unequivocally as fact.

Be that as it may, if you think they might be wrong, you are disbelieving what they have said as they expressed it.

I can believe that someone is giving me their honest beliefs and opinions and still believe they may be mistaken.   Leaders have stated things as absolutes in the past that over time have been recognized as being erroneous.  There is no reason to believe that this won't happen again as these men are human and do make mistakes.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sometimes we make the mistake of projecting how the  Church operates today after almost 200 years of experience and growth back onto the early days of the Restoration when all things were new and the course was uncharted. We even have an Article of Faith that addresses that issue. Many important things are yet to be revealed. Change through continuing revelation is critical to the Restoration. For example,

 

I get it. The church has changed. I don't see why it's a big deal for some to admit this.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I can believe that someone is giving me their honest beliefs and opinions and still believe they may be mistaken.   Leaders have stated things as absolutes in the past that over time have been recognized as being erroneous.  There is no reason to believe that this won't happen again as these men are human and do make mistakes.

Again, it was never stated as merely an expression of opinion.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I can believe that someone is giving me their honest beliefs and opinions and still believe they may be mistaken.   Leaders have stated things as absolutes in the past that over time have been recognized as being erroneous.  There is no reason to believe that this won't happen again as these men are human and do make mistakes.

So true and we need to remember they do the best they can but we all make mistakes.

There are so many example of past church leaders making definite statements and then after awhile it's changed or it's made known they were wrong.  That's normal too I think.

Adam God is a good example.  I have to believe that Brigham believed it when he taught it.

Edited September 22, 2017 by JulieM

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, it was never stated as merely an expression of opinion.

As far as i'm aware, neither were any of the other statements that have since been disavowed or proved to be untrue.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I get it. The church has changed. I don't see why it's a big deal for some to admit this.

I suppose it is what one is being expected to admit. For instance, I'm not willing to admit polygamy and the Priesthood ban were mistakes, but I understand how some feel they should be considered that way. Other things I am willing to wait for further information, but even then, we remember the precedent of Peter and Paul and preaching to the Gentiles. Changing Ward Teaching to Home Teaching, meeting schedules, etc., not so much. The most important things  remain constant such as the doctrines of the Atonement of Jesus, the place of the Book of Mormon in our scriptures, and the restoration keys of the Priesthood.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's interesting, Bernard.  I honestly hadn't thought about that.  I would tend to believe that a God is a God....none live higher laws than another, but maybe they don't all live identically.  

Either way though, what BY taught (regarding polygamy being necessary to become a God) has been changed to the teaching that we have a choice and can become a God without entering into polygamous relationships (current teaching).

Having been proven herewith, I haven't done much to show that I'm one of these, but I hope I might have done something that will be added upon....

Quote

Abraham 3: 22-25 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; 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. And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estateshall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

I'm  still looking on some sin without abhorrence, but hopefully I'll have a little  more time to work on it. I expect some day to talk with Brother Brigham and get the straight scoop on all the stuff he said or was heard to say that gives people heartburn today. I think he'll be up to snuff, as it were.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I suppose it is what one is being expected to admit. For instance, I'm not willing to admit polygamy and the Priesthood ban were mistakes, but I understand how some feel they should be considered that way. Other things I am willing to wait for further information, but even then, we remember the precedent of Peter and Paul and preaching to the Gentiles. Changing Ward Teaching to Home Teaching, meeting schedules, etc., not so much. The most important things  remain constant such as the doctrines of the Atonement of Jesus, the place of the Book of Mormon in our scriptures, and the restoration keys of the Priesthood.

Certain doctrines and practices have changed, though, like how many times baptism is performed.  It's obvious and yet some have a hard time admitting changes like this one have occurred over the years.  I don't know why it is so difficult to admit the obvious and I feel it stunts any conversation.  Change doesn't necessarily mean that the church is falsified as believers have the concept of modern revelation to counter this complaint.  So, there is still room to admit change and still believe.  When I was a believer, my thoughts were that God wanted his children in his church and would change or adapt to better persuade or coax his children to come to him.  It was really an argument of substance over form and that the procedures could change as long as the purpose and substance remained.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

They did not express it as an opinion. It was expressed unequivocally as fact.

Be that as it may, if you think they might be wrong, you are disbelieving what they have said as they expressed it.

Clearly leaders state things as unequivocally facts that are still only their opinions.  When they do that it can cause much heartache and suffering. That I know to be true. No one should take what church leaders are saying as fact. God is the source of truth, not church leaders. Some sadly have learned that lesson better than others

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, it was never stated as merely an expression of opinion.

It is always just their opinion unless the prophet declares it as revelation. which is something President Monson has yet to do on any subject while he has been presiding. 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't know about the last 100 yrs, but regardless, it has changed since joseph smith. Back then they would get baptized a lot and now it's just once. Do you deny this?

Just once unless it is more than once in case you are re-baptized.

Not the greatest example.

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just once unless it is more than once in case you are re-baptized.

Not the greatest example.

It's actually a great example.  I don't know if you've followed the thread about the changes over the years regarding baptism in the church.  If not, it's interesting to read through.

Here's one quote from JLHPROF:
 

Quote

Baptism has changed in the Church.
There used to be multiple uses for baptism.  Brigham Young was estimated as being baptized over 15 times.
Baptism used to be performed for a large variety of reasons.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69611-baptism-doctrinal-evolution/?do=findComment&comment=1209757986

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just once unless it is more than once in case you are re-baptized.

Not the greatest example.

Whatever. Then no one gets "re-baptized" like they used to. Does that satisfy your hyper-technical defensiveness?

So, are you in the denial camp, too? In your mind has the church never changed anything? Maybe the temple ceremony was never changed? Maybe it was just redefined to be something other than change? Maybe adam-god never happened? Maybe Joseph Smith really never had sex with any of his wives like Meg Stout pushes?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

It's actually a great example.  I don't know if you've followed the thread about the changes over the years regarding baptism in the church.  If not, it's interesting to read through.

Here's one quote from JLHPROF:
 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69611-baptism-doctrinal-evolution/?do=findComment&comment=1209757986

 

Sealings and the law of adoption is another doctrinal change that has happened within mormonism.  It won't count for Scott since it was changed in 1894 or something like that, but it's still a great example of the doctrinal changes that have sometimes happened.

I was reading FAIR mormon and they talked about how the LDS concept of the Celestial Kingdom changed significantly around the turn of the century.  That's one that I didn't know about.

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Whatever. Then no one gets "re-baptized" like they used to. Does that satisfy your hyper-technical defensiveness?

So, are you in the denial camp, too? In your mind has the church never changed anything? Maybe the temple ceremony was never changed? Maybe it was just redefined to be something other than change? Maybe adam-god never happened? Maybe Joseph Smith really never had sex with any of his wives like Meg Stout pushes?

Man, you are dreaming here. I have never in the last 40 years denied that truth changes. I guess all those long posts to you go in one ear and out the other.

Of course the church changes, truth changes, and we have an open Canon.

And no, it is possible to get baptized more than once regardless of whatever importance that supposedly has for you!

And no, I did have a camera in Joseph's bedroom and I really don't care how many women he allegedly slept with, nor do I care how many women Kant or Hegel slept with.  Do you?

Sorry you have the wrong guy. I will say it again, positivism is dead and you don't know it.

What you don't know and will not learn is not my problem.  I have tried.

Edited September 23, 2017 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

As far as i'm aware, neither were any of the other statements that have since been disavowed or proved to be untrue.

There are many statements of "doctrine" by church leaders. This doctrine is now disavowed as a "theory". Here's the 1st Presidency statement from 1949 as 1 example.

Quote

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)¹

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. 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.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when 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 and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

1. Published in many places, e.g., in Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, ed. Lester E. Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984), 221.

Then from a 1969 first presidency statement there is a tidbit about the specific doctrine of blacks being unworthy in the pre-existence.

Quote

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

Church leaders taught this as doctrine, not personal opinion. There are many other sources.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Clearly leaders state things as unequivocally facts that are still only their opinions.  When they do that it can cause much heartache and suffering. That I know to be true. No one should take what church leaders are saying as fact. God is the source of truth, not church leaders. Some sadly have learned that lesson better than others

I reject your assertion that "no one should take what Church leaders are saying as fact." When they are expressing the mind and will of God -- as I fervently believe they have done in this instance -- it should be taken as that (see D&C 1). 

And no, it is not essential in each and every instance for the prophet to say he is speaking for God. Very often that is implicit. 

Besides, for many people who have hardened their attitudes on this subject, I don't think it would make much difference if he did. President Nelson spoke in some detail about the revelatory process that attended the formulation of the November 2015 policy, but his affirmation was met with harsh resistance and naysaying in some quarters. Clearly, for them it made little difference that a prophet said God directed the action other than, in some instances, to make them yet more hostile. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

It's actually a great example.  I don't know if you've followed the thread about the changes over the years regarding baptism in the church.  If not, it's interesting to read through.

Here's one quote from JLHPROF:
 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69611-baptism-doctrinal-evolution/?do=findComment&comment=1209757986

 

Thanks but so what if it has changed? Is that important?

Yes I was aware people used to get baptized all the time, but we can still get rebaptized if we have been excommunicated

I am not on that thread because it is of little interest to me.

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I reject your assertion that "no one should take what Church leaders are saying as fact." When they are expressing the mind and will of God -- as I fervently believe they have done in this instance -- it should be taken as that (see D&C 1). 

And no, it is not essential in each and every instance for the prophet to say he is speaking for God. Very often that is implicit. 

Besides, for many people who have hardened their attitudes on this subject, I don't think it would make much difference if he did. President Nelson spoke in some detail about the revelatory process that attended the formulation of the November 2015 policy, but his affirmation was met with harsh resistance and naysaying in some quarters. Clearly, for them it made little difference that a prophet said God directed the action other than, in some instances, to make them yet more hostile. 

When a prophet says "this is doctrine" and then another prophet says "I disavow that doctrine theory" then things get messy. Both are supposedly expressing the mind of God by revealing fact/truth that is contradictory. I can't think of a positive reason why someone would fail to acknowledge this conflict.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When a prophet says "this is doctrine" and then another prophet says "I disavow that doctrine theory" then things get messy. Both are supposedly expressing the mind of God by revealing fact/truth that is contradictory. I can't think of a positive reason why someone would fail to acknowledge this conflict.

 

So I take it that it wouldn't make any difference to you if the Church leaders did attribute their assertion to God that the doctrine pertaining to traditional marriage won't change. 

Let's be upfront about that.