Dr. King and his legacy
21 members have voted
1. Please choose the answer that best fits your position
I’m LDS and I think it fitting we celebrate Dr. King and his legacy with a national holiday13
I’m LDS and I think too much attention is given to Dr. King and his legacy2
I’m Christian, non-LDS and I think it fitting we celebrate Dr. King and his legacy with a national holiday3
I’m Christian, non-LDS and I think too much attention is given to Dr. King and his legacy0
I’m neither Christian nor LDS and I think it fitting we celebrate Dr. King and his legacy with a national holiday3
I’m neither Christian nor LDS and I think too much attention is given to Dr. King and his legacy0
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
By Bill “Papa” Lee
I grew up hearing the beautiful song, "Amazing Grace", almost every Sunday. It would some times be interchanged with the song, "Just As I Am". Both songs we songs of pleading in an attempt pull at the heart strings of all in attendance and entice members, or visitors to answer the "Altar Call", which was done every Sunday, or for others to "recommit" again to Jesus Christ. It was, while I was growing up, and one room Church. In the early days, no indoor plumbing, only "out houses", and no A/C . It was also a segregated Church, Black people were not allowed to attend. The few times, where a Black man or woman, being new to the area would wonder in, two Deacons, would calmly go back to where they sitting, and politely give then the name of nearby Black congregations, always with a handshake calling them, "Brother and Sister". But such activities would anger my Mother (God bless her soul). She was angry that our Church would do this, and insisted we leave. Knowing my Mother as I do, it was all she could do than to go outside in the hopes of finding them to apologize.
Between the year my Father died, and when my Mother passed away, this tiny Church (after 125+), became two rooms. At the insistence of my Mother, I spoke at my Father's funeral. So when she passed away, she had already told me (the youngest of four children) to speak when she passed away. It was a very difficult burying my last parent. So, I went about praying and reading, and searching for inspiration. I arrived at Church very early, and noticed they had an indoor font for Baptism, (in this large new room) etched in store were the words of "Amazing Grave", written by John Norton, and knowing the story of how it came to be. At that moment I received the inspiration I was seeking.
So so after a few pleasant remarks, I told the Church that everywhere I go, these people and memories I take with me, my experiences and memories of them with me. I turned to the hymnal, find the song and read parts of the song. I then pointed out that John Norton, used to be a "slave trader". I also (since my Mother loves the song and story) spoke of it, and then spoke of his conversion. John Norton, found himself so weighted down with his horrible sins, that he had place else to look, so he "looked up". At look up he did, and received salvation, and that the weight that was crushing him, was being lifted away. I recently found a story about it, and shared (a video) it with every friend and family on FACEBOOK. I received no amens, no replays, not even a rebuke. Usually when I share "Christ like stories", I get many, many, many, Amen's or thank you's.
I am posting this here, because many years ago, while teaching Gospel Doctrine, the next week's lesson addressed the the 2nd Offical Declaration. So I asked two different members who lived in Utah, when the "Priesthood Ban" was lifted, so I wanted their imput. This was two guys who never miss Church, but both did no show. So, I asked and older Sister, what did she think? Her opening comments worried me, but thankfully she brought it home. Be it the song, "Amazing Grace", where so many in Church (as I still teach), often try to over explain what "salvation by Grace" means, out of fear that others don't understand the topic. As we are all saved by Grace, and were it not for God's Amazing Grace, nothing any of us would matter. We are "saved by Grace", we are rewarded and exalted, buy our deeds bs actions, but only because we have "Grace".
Also, living here in the great Southeast, it would seem that few want to the source of the song. Also the life of the man, John Newton, who sold all that he had to build a Church, one in which he preached and wrote Amazing Grace, but also cared for the Church himself. He was also instrumental in help to stop the "slave trade", this was also due to the fact that, William Wilberforce, leader of the House of Commons, and his best friend, James Penn, England's Prime Minister. Both of who worship in John Newton's Church. The song itself was a sermon that Norton wrote.
Anyway, what will it take for us to be mindful and loving of have a more diverse membership? Also, who here on this board, how did you feel about the day the ban was lifted? If there are any, please share.
By Benjamin Seeker
I started a thread earlier this year addressing some verses in D&C 86 on Joseph Smith and lineal priesthood. I recently followed up on it and put the puzzle pieces together.
D&C 86:8-10 appears to state that Joseph Smith had the priesthood through birthright. An early hint of JS' beliefs about his lineage come from 2 Ne 3, which teaches that JS is a descendant of Joseph (11th son of Israel), and though the lineage of Ephraim is one of leadership, it's not apparent that there is a lineal priesthood associated with it like there is for the Levites or the sons of Aaron. However, a Smith family lineal priesthood authority is actually well attested. JS established the position of Patriarch of the church, which originally was something akin to second in command, as a lineal position given to the eldest in a direct line from Joseph Smith Sr. This clear example of a lineal priesthood eventually disappeared when the position of church Patriarch was done away with due to conflict between the church Patriarch and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (EDIT: Robert points out later in this thread that the absence of the Church Patriarch can be seen as a result of the homosexual status of the second to last patriarch, and that the position may still be filled at a future point. Radio Free Mormon, and others I'm sure, have made other arguments, but this point is pretty peripheral to the discussion).
The position of Patriarch to the church is only half of the story. D&C 113 states, "What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse? Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power." It is common in Mormon thought to believe these verses apply to Joseph Smith, and that seems to be a correct assumption. The line of Jesse refers to the kingly line of David, and significantly, JS prophesied "the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage," which apparently referred to one of JS' offspring. He made this clear when he prophesied that his unborn son, David, would be a "church president and king over Israel."
In Mormon theology, a King in the kingdom of Israel is a priesthood position. Notably, JS himself was ordained as a King in this sense in the Council of Fifty, also known in revelation as the "The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ." According to Nauvoo theology the priesthood role of King was the ultimate leader of the Church, and according to contemporary accounts, Hyrum Smith was to fill JS' shoes should he die. All of this together gives a pretty clear answer to the lineal priesthood mentioned in D&C 86. The Smith family was a royal family in Israel destined to lead the restoration.
By Five Solas
The LDS Church has made some strong statements against racism generally--but here are a few things that might still be leaving folks with a reasonable doubt. In no particular order--
1. Insisting that God “established” the U.S. Constitution (complete with its Three Fifths Clause pertaining to African Americans). https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688778/Protection-of-God-given-moral-agency.html
2. Refusing to condemn the Alt-Right movement, as the Southern Baptist Convention has done (in unflinching, unequivocal terms). See discussion here.
3. Its foremost apologist defending Confederate General Robert E. Lee and pretending the American Civil War was about states rights instead of slavery. (Perhaps we could all chip in & buy Dr. Peterson a ticket to visit the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture—which I’d highly recommend to anyone in or visiting the D.C. area.)
4. And on our own board (and seemingly inspired by President Trump’s deplorable remarks alleging moral equivalency at Charlottesville between avowed Nazis/white supremacists and those who protested them)—we have a writer for the Church-owned Deseret News wringing his hands over the tactics of Antifa, as though that were the real problem.
On that last topic of moral equivalency—it’s interesting to recall the LDS Church’s position during the Second World War, when all of Europe (save Britain) was overrun by the Fascist governments of Germany & Italy and Hitler’s genocidal ambitions were no longer a secret. Five months after Pear Harbor—we get this remarkable statement of position. Against Communism! And against the war generally—but nonetheless arguing citizens must do their duty to their government (and no exception here for the German ones, they have a duty to serve the Fascist regime).
5. One last thought on the topic. I spent 5 years in Glenwood Utah, graduating from Richfield Junior High, class of 1984. (Thereafter my parents moved us to unincorporated Salt Lake County.) Richfield Junior High was the home of the Roadrunners!
But the school hadn’t always been Roadrunners. Consistent with Southern Utah “Dixie” themes—originally it was home of the Rebels. You want to know why they changed it in the 1970s? Do you think it's because they didn’t want to be associated with traitors who fought to persist the institution of slavery? Well, silly you if you thought that! They changed it because they felt the term “rebel” had an association with 1960s counter-culture. I’m not making this up. Hippies are the real problem!
As they might say, "Far out, man."
No politics. No Nazis. No attacks on other posters.
I found this via Daniel Peterson's facebook post which links to his Patheos website. From Slate:
It could not have happened to a nicer person.
Slate article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/08/18/the_mormon_church_condemned_white_supremacists_and_this_mormon_white_supremacist.html
Dan's Patheos weblink: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/08/mormon-church-condemned-white-supremacists-mormon-white-supremacist-mom-mad.html#uLGjjRFZHyVOdhYB.01
Gina Colvin, Ph.D. (in journalism, that is) has a blog on Patheos. She styles her blog "Kiwimormon," as if her views were typical of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand.
I've tried to point out to her that they are not. However, like most (heh heh) "liberals," her tolerance for dissent is far less than what she demands of the Church.
Therefore, given that I am no longer able to post comments on her blog, I will comment here.
Please refer to this article: Kiwimormon
Dr Colvin seems to think that Mr Angilau was shot for no other reason than being brown in charge of a pen. I have a number of questions about that; perhaps Dr Colvin might know the answers.
Was Mr Angilau the only "Brown Brother" in the courtroom on that day, or were there others? If there were others, is it possible that some of them might likewise have had pens? If they did, is there any distinguising factor between Mr Angilau and the other brown (and white) pen-holders in the courtroom who were not shot? Is it within the realms of possiblity that Mr Angilau was shot, not for his skin colour and/or his possession of a pen, but the fact that he was trying to attack a witness in a courtroom? Some readers may be puzzled by the way Dr Colvin and her quoted source use the word "injustice." As a New Zealander, I believe I can explain it.
When a certain group of people are entitled! to preferential treatment, it is unjust to expect them to submit to the rule of law, as long as those laws apply equally to everyone.
Only laws that recognise -- and privilege -- their uniquely entitled! status are or could possibly be just.
See how that works?
Make no mistake: this event was a tragedy. I am not ridiculing Mr Angilau or his family; I am ridiculing the slipshod thinkers and polemical opportunists who are trying to make this into a racist shooting.
What a pity the shooter was a US marshal! If only he'd been a Utah police officer, Dr Colvin would have had an opportunity to make it even more about Utah (and thus, get that much closer to her real target, the Church of Jesus Christ.)
But we wonder: what if the marshal had failed to act to stop the attack? What if Mr Angilau, a large, strong man with a history of violence, had managed to seriously injure Mr Vaiola Tenifa, the man he was trying to attack, while the marshals dithered about how to restrain him? Wouldn't that, in Dr Colvin's book, simply have made Mr Tenifa the victim of white racism? Wouldn't it prove that they didn't care enough about a "Brown Brother" to do anything decisive to protect him?
Given the circumstances, is there anything the marshals could have done that Dr Colvin would not have interpreted through her Brown Supremacist lens?
The fact Dr Colvin cannot see is that Mr Angilau was not shot for being an innocent brown guy who just happened to pick up a pen. He was shot because he was a gang member trying to intimidate a witness in a criminal trial.
This isn't related to religion.