What religious background has the highest probability of converting to Mormonism?

[3DOP]

25 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

When?

Don't you mean If?

Kiwi, hi. I am fine with your correction.

I am satisfied with "if". In fact, that is probably an improvement. I doubt that anyone in any age (even the ages before football, heh. AMERICAN footie) would be a missionary "selling skepticism about the one true church". To clarify for the record, I am attacking the Internet Mormonism with which I am now familiar. Except for the apostasy question, I was satisfied with McConkie and Peterson, but they are out of favor today, especially by Internet Mormons.

I make a distinction about what most Mormons here believe, and what Mormons who are willing to hit the streets believe. It seems impossible to me that the missions will continue if skepticism about one true church wins the day. Who would be a missionary for "the only thing that is true is that we cannot know what is true"? Of course I have simplified. There are nuances. But the missions will die when or if you move away from one true church. It does not seem to me like your young people will have any zeal, or spirit of sacrifice for a liberal Mormonism that denies one true church and embraces the morality of the network news. Rightly so. Let the TV preach the Gospel.The best I can reasonably hope is that you all stay true to your roots.

Edited February 4, 2018 by 3DOP

[Five Solas]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I gave serious consideration to LDS claims as a conservative Protestant. But that was twenty-five years ago, before the author of Offended For a Word was active at ZLMB, and when the author of Mormon Doctrine was revered instead of reviled. It seemed to me that men like that adequately answered the claims posed by the anti-Mormons, whether it be about Mountain Meadows, blacks in the priesthood, polygamy, or Book of Mormon historicity. There was never a problem for me, until moving away from the Latter-day Church, it was time to demonstrate an apostasy of the Former-day Church. 

I don't think apologetics even matter anymore, much less whether the apostasy is true or not. "Truth claims" become unimportant unless there are objective ways to weigh the claims. Members of churches that once made truth claims have embraced a viewpoint that is skeptical about truth claims. They believe it is true that we cannot know the truth. As a result, like modern Catholics, modern Mormons seem to distance themselves from the faith and history of even the most recent generations of their fathers. If there is such a thing as apostasy, that is my definition. Falling away.

As a former conservative Protestant and now a Traditional Catholic, I could not be interested in a religion that has changed into something that would have appalled its forefathers.

If a church isn't one and true, I'll find a TV, and watch football all day on Sundays.

PS: In the 21st Century, I voted liberal Protestant. It depends on the beliefs of the missionaries. When it gets to the point that the missionaries are selling skepticism about one true church, I think Liberal Protestants are the best bet.

You seem nostalgic for a faith that was never yours, 3DOP.  Nostalgia for nostalgia's sake.  And yet Mormonism won't reward such sentimentality.  And it never has and there's no reason to think it ever will. 

A very curious post, this.

--Erik

____________________________________________

Libraries gave us power
Then work came and made us free
What price now
For a shallow piece of dignity

I wish I had a bottle
Right here in my dirty face
To wear the scars
To show from where I came

--Manic Street Preachers, "A Design for Life"

 

[3DOP]

Erik...Hey...

Yeah, I am a sentimentalist. I am a cry baby. All weekend I have been tearing up over different versions of Danny Boy. I keep thinking about my far away babies. I have been trying in recent years not to cry when I say goodbye to the kids. They don't cry like me, but I believe in their love. I am certainly a little weak in the heart, but I am glad they don't cry too. I think the parents should cry for the children, not the other way around. Admittedly, it warms my soul to think of my little ones, that "If I am dead and all the flowers are dying, if I am dead, as dead I well may be, I pray you'll (they'll) find the place where I am lying, you'll (they'll) kneel and say an Ave there for me. And I shall hear though soft you tread above me. And all my grave shall warm and sweeter be. Then you will kneel and whisper that you love me, and I shall sleep in peace until you come to me." That is sentiment and it is no proof of truth. To sentimentalism, I plead guilty.

But I don't think I am looking for Mormonism to reward my sentimentalism. I don't quite understand your criticism yet. Nostalgia for nostalgia's sake? I am pretty sure that's not me. Whatever my heart wants I don't expect from Mormonism. I am detached from Mormonism. Of course. I have never been Mormon. There is no sentiment, no nostalgia that I can detect. My intellect demands continuity, not nostalgia. But I welcome a clarification of your perception that I desire nostalgia.

Edited February 5, 2018 by 3DOP

[Guest]

The question in the thread title, is almost impossible to answer. I live and am from Georgia, where almost all converts come from the Baptist Faith, as did I. This is because (I would say) 8 out of 10 people in the State of Georgia are Baptist. In fact, even though living in West Germany (at that time), being from the South (the Bible Belt) I was Baptist. Converts from those who grew up in Germany, the missionaries who taught me told me that Germans were either, Catholic and Lutheran. In fact the missionaries who taught us, were called to serve in Germany back in the 70's, until my wife and I, they had never even met a Baptist before us. This of course was when most missionaries were from Utah and Idaho (which may still be true) where the two main Churches are Mormons and Catholics. 

[Five Solas]

8 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Erik...Hey...

Yeah, I am a sentimentalist. I am a cry baby. All weekend I have been tearing up over different versions of Danny Boy. But its better than crying when I say goodbye to the kids. (I have been doing better lately.)

Now, I don't think I am looking for Mormonism to reward my sentimentalism. I don't quite understand your criticism yet. Nostalgia for nostalgia's sake? I am pretty sure that's not me. Whatever my heart wants, my intellect demands continuity, not nostalgia.

It's funny, when you say "Danny Boy"--I don't think of the original, what pops into my head is Chumbawamba's "Tubthumping."  And that's a rather different thing (but brilliant in its own way).  And also entirely consistent with the theme of nostalgia.  Pop music betrays us (how old we are, mostly). 

I certainly didn't mean it as a harsh criticism (because you know I like you).  But I honestly don't get how you seem to think certain LDS have spoilt the Mormonism you found attractive.  Really, do you wish the author of Mormon Doctrine were still revered by a couple million Americans?  He promoted some pretty terrible ideas that didn't help anyone.  And anyhow, it's kinda hard to spoil something that's always changing.  That was really my point.  Kinda like the old adage about the rolling stone gathering no moss... 

--Erik 

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

You seem nostalgic for a faith that was never yours, 3DOP.  Nostalgia for nostalgia's sake.  And yet Mormonism won't reward such sentimentality.  And it never has and there's no reason to think it ever will. 

A very curious post, this.

--Erik

____________________________________________

Libraries gave us power
Then work came and made us free
What price now
For a shallow piece of dignity

I wish I had a bottle
Right here in my dirty face
To wear the scars
To show from where I came

--Manic Street Preachers, "A Design for Life"

 

Okay...I think I get it now. Never Mormon. "a faith that was never yours." Why would I argue for old Mormonism? Only because its closer to Old Catholicism. I think Bruce McConkie and Dan Peterson are closer to my faith than Pope Francis. And I think Pope Francis is (sadly) closer to New Mormonism than the grandparents of most of today's Mormons. This explains to me why Pope Francis is so popular among New Mormons. Those who care about continuity will always be at odds with those who don't.

This might seem random. I can explain later if there is interest. But I am not interested in a faith that was false until the 21st Century. That seems to me to be what modern Mormonism and modern Catholicism propose. Before I could believe modern Mormonism or modern Catholicism was true, I would believe in God, and be a Restorationist-In-Waiting. (Not here yet) I would be kinda Mormon? No? heh. But instead, I believe what the Catholic Church has continuously taught, rejecting all novelties.

Edited February 5, 2018 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

It's funny, when you say "Danny Boy"--I don't think of the original, what pops into my head is Chumbawamba's "Tubthumping."  And that's a rather different thing (but brilliant in its own way).  And also entirely consistent with the theme of nostalgia.  Pop music betrays us (how old we are, mostly). 

I certainly didn't mean it as a harsh criticism (because you know I like you).  But I honestly don't get how you seem to think certain LDS have spoilt the Mormonism you found attractive.  Really, do you wish the author of Mormon Doctrine were still revered by a couple million Americans?  He promoted some pretty terrible ideas that didn't help anyone.  And anyhow, it's kinda hard to spoil something that's always changing.  That was really my point.  Kinda like the old adage about the rolling stone gathering no moss... 

--Erik 

So what did Elder McConkie promote that was so bad? If Catholicism were untrue, it makes sense to me that it would be especially bad, uniquely evil, whore of Babylon and all that. In my ignorance, that is the only thing I know about McConkie, and I find it refreshing as a Catholic. How much more if were a Joseph Smith LDS?

Edited February 5, 2018 by 3DOP

[Five Solas]

16 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Okay...I think I get it now. Never Mormon. "a faith that was never yours." Why would I argue for old Mormonism? Only because its closer to Old Catholicism. I think Bruce McConkie and Dan Peterson are closer to my faith than Pope Francis. And I think Pope Francis is (sadly) closer to New Mormonism than the grandparents of most Mormons. This explains why Pope Francis is so popular among New Mormons.

You got it. 

But I don't think McConkie or Peterson were/are anywhere close to your Popes prior to Francis.  What Pope has argued those of African descent were "fence-sitters" in a pre-mortal existence war between Jesus and Lucifer?  What Pope has argued the American Civil War was primarily about states rights instead of slavery and posted links lamenting the taking down of Confederate memorials erected during the Jim Crow era?!? 

Really, you don't want to tie yourself to their legacy.  It's not a healthy place to be.  Whatever you might think of Pope Francis, and I get that you're not a fan, there are ideas a good deal worse than his.   

--Erik

[3DOP]

24 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

You got it. 

But I don't think McConkie or Peterson were/are anywhere close to your Popes prior to Francis.  What Pope has argued those of African descent were "fence-sitters" in a pre-mortal existence war between Jesus and Lucifer?  What Pope has argued the American Civil War was primarily about states rights instead of slavery and posted links lamenting the taking down of Confederate memorials erected during the Jim Crow era?!? 

Really, you don't want to tie yourself to their legacy.  It's not a healthy place to be.  Whatever you might think of Pope Francis, and I get that you're not a fan, there are ideas a good deal worse than his.   

--Erik

Hey. I am sorry. I will perhaps lose you. But I am not among those who hold that the Civil War was about northern love vs. southern hate. And besides...that's just politics (I could say if I made such a false distinction). I thought you all believed in separation of church and state. So he got the state part wrong. I am interested in church.

[Anijen]

Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China and at one time Mongolia had a huge conversion rate. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these non-Christian countries catch on fire...

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Hey. I am sorry. I will perhaps lose you. But I am not among those who hold that the Civil War was about northern love vs. southern hate. And besides...that's just politics (I could say if I made such a false distinction). I thought you all believed in separation of church and state. So he got the state part wrong. I am interested in church.

As you know even better than I do, there are those that fall from the faith and attach themselves to any church/religion/philosophy that scratches their itch. Having no authority from God they preach the doctrines of men mingled with whatever scripture they find attractive while ignoring any scripture that conflicts with their chosen beliefs.  

Francis simply confuses the heck out of me. At times I think there might be a ray of light and then he goes out anew on some new venture.  I think, in many ways, we are cut from the same stone.  We stand on the truths we know, capable of recognizing truths elsewhere, but not so much that we would join the "other" church.  

What I do not tire of are those who love to compare the humanity of God's prophets throughout time to their vaunted standard of "it/they needed to be better".  What I have learned is that we will be judged with the same standard that we so quickly judge others.  It will be a sad day for many that have built their beliefs system on sand and have judged the servants of God as having failed their standard of required morality. 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

...........................................................

As a former conservative Protestant and now a Traditional Catholic, I could not be interested in a religion that has changed into something that would have appalled its forefathers................................

Excellent point, Rory.

[clarkgoble]

On 2/3/2018 at 4:39 PM, Five Solas said:

As LDS Church membership growth stalls and in some places declines (particularly in urban areas like Seattle), a number of explanations have been offered.  There’s been a lot of focus on availability of information via the internet, particularly regarding church history.  There’s also been a lot of discussion of Millennials and their preferences, which are often not well aligned with traditional LDS beliefs and culture.

But I wonder if part of the trouble isn’t related to a decline in the traditional candidate pool for LDS conversions.  In my experience, LDS converts often came from what I would call liberal Protestantism, mainline denominations many of which have been in steady decline in recent decades.  And if my observation is broadly true, then as they have declined the result has been a shrinking pool of promising candidates for LDS missionaries to draw from.  Implicit here is that the LDS message doesn’t resonate equally well across different groups (unless the candidate is only marginally engaged therein).

What do folks here think?  Does the LDS religion have a uniform appeal across religious backgrounds?  Or are some more likely, statistically speaking, to be receptive to the LDS message? 

Without hard data it's hard to even speculate. My guess would be that it would be people attached to relatively conservative religions but loosely associated with them. i.e. a lot of the people now saying they are part of the Nones but who in the past would have said Baptist, Catholic or so forth. People who have an inclination to believe in an interventionist activist God but who feel something lacking in their lives. But that's just a guess.

My personal guess is that the same trends that made a more nominalist change in self-identity (people who rarely went to church now saying they aren't anything) are making it hard for the church. I personally think they're still very reachable but that the Church hasn't figured out a way to crouch its message now that the trappings of conservative religion have fallen away. So our traditional 20th century message was in terms of truth, authority, and sin. But those just don't matter anymore to the Nones.

[Calm]

"So our traditional 20th century message was in terms of truth, authority, and sin."

Most converts I know personally joined because of the idea of eternal families, that belonging to the Church in some way would allow them to be with their families as families in the future.  For some this was the authority of the sealing power, for others it was getting access to ideas of how to live as a family eternally...more focused on the idea of God's care and protection being made accessible.

This seems both focused on authority, but also something more.  I think we need to understand and find a way to communicate why one still needs ordinances and Gospel instruction on how to prepare oneself to those who see a desire to be together (love) as all that is necessary and sufficient if there is divinity looking out for us.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

You got it. 

But I don't think McConkie or Peterson were/are anywhere close to your Popes prior to Francis.  What Pope has argued those of African descent were "fence-sitters" in a pre-mortal existence war between Jesus and Lucifer?

For that matter, what Mormon prophet or apostle ever argued such a thing?

Call for references, please. Support or retract.

Quote

What Pope has argued the American Civil War was primarily about states rights instead of slavery and posted links lamenting the taking down of Confederate memorials erected during the Jim Crow era?!? 

Here's what Dan actually said about that:

Quote

At least one respondent seemed to suggest that I was attempting to justify or minimize the evil of black slavery.  This didn’t amuse me at all.  It’s an utterly false insinuation, and very offensive.

Care to respond?

Also:

Quote

With regard to enslaved blacks, of course, the Confederacy was obviously an authoritarian state enforcing an evil institution and oppressing human beings who should have been free.

Any questions?

Perhaps you'd like to comment on this:

Quote

Many Southerners were fighting for that vision of a power-limited confederation of states.  Hence the name of their new (and short-lived) country.

Note that he didn't say "all Southerners" or "most Southerners," but "many Southerners." Where did you get your "primarily" from?

Or are you arguing that that simply wasn't true? Did nobody south of the Mason-Dixon line care about limiting the power of the Federal government? I hear quite a lot about it these days. Is it your position that that is some kind of 21st century innovation?

Or this:

Quote

Anyway, Robert E. Lee and others were, in many cases, fighting as much for the old understanding of America as much as, or perhaps even more than, they were fighting for the continuance of slavery.

I'm sorry, but "in many cases" doesn't mean "primarily." You have misrepresented Dan's position.

But then, I suppose you had to do that, didn't you? Otherwise you couldn't really attack it, could you?

Quote

Really, you don't want to tie yourself to their legacy.  It's not a healthy place to be.  Whatever you might think of Pope Francis, and I get that you're not a fan, there are ideas a good deal worse than his.   

--Erik

For instance, I haven't heard that he thinks it's a good idea to seriously misrepresent his ideological opponents in order to discredit them.

Edited February 5, 2018 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, Five Solas said:

What Pope has argued the American Civil War was primarily about states rights instead of slavery and posted links lamenting the taking down of Confederate memorials erected during the Jim Crow era?!? 

Incidentally Erik, you know those links you are misrepresenting? They were primarily discussing the question of whether the Confederate leaders were traitors.

Take this one, for example: https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2017/06/28/were-confederate-generals-traitors-n2346707

(When you link to it, take note of the author's photo, in the top left corner of the page.)

It does mention, in passing, the destruction of the monuments, but that is mentioned in only the first paragraph. The rest of it is all about the question posed in the title. (This might help you to get a grasp of what "primarily" means.)

[kiwi57]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I certainly didn't mean it as a harsh criticism (because you know I like you).  But I honestly don't get how you seem to think certain LDS have spoilt the Mormonism you found attractive.  Really, do you wish the author of Mormon Doctrine were still revered by a couple million Americans?  He promoted some pretty terrible ideas that didn't help anyone.

And he also promoted some absolutely brilliant ideas that brought joy to a great many people.

The great thing about defaming the dead is that they can't sue.

So I'll go on record as saying that, whatever his faults may have been, Elder McConkie was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, and deserves better than your sneering dismissal.

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

  And anyhow, it's kinda hard to spoil something that's always changing.  That was really my point.  Kinda like the old adage about the rolling stone gathering no moss...

An adage that has no relevance to the Church of Jesus Christ. Which, in essentials, is (in the words of Miss Bennet) "very much what [it] ever was."

[3DOP]

9 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

For that matter, what Mormon prophet or apostle ever argued such a thing?

 

I think its only just to try to understand why those who lost a war believed in fighting it. But it takes generations. Americans still have difficulty examining southern motives in the American Civil War. It is in part because those who win wars are often those who are best at vilifying the enemy. It seems advantageous both in the theater of action, as well as the home front, to make the enemy in to monsters. It becomes a continuing problem after wars. Veterans, widows, bereaved parents, and a deceived public are understandably resistant to the idea that the enemy was actually nicer than what they were made out to be. When enemy motives are badly miscontrued, the settlements after wars are often much more harsh on the losers than objective justice would have allowed.

I am sure it is more comforting to have won a war for freedom of the oppressed, than for questionable export tariffs on southern goods headed for Europe. I am not suggesting that economics were the exclusive motives either. I am saying it is complicated, and seldom are wars fought because one side represents love and the other side represents hate.

Anyway, back to the subject matter. Good job defending DCP. Do you think McConkie believed that the advantages or disadvantages of a person's birth situation has to do with worthiness in the pre-existence? Is that not a permissible position to take? Where may we learn that a person's birth situation is random according to LDS doctrine?

Edited February 5, 2018 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

20 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It's funny, when you say "Danny Boy"--I don't think of the original, what pops into my head is Chumbawamba's "Tubthumping."  And that's a rather different thing (but brilliant in its own way).  And also entirely consistent with the theme of nostalgia.  Pop music betrays us (how old we are, mostly). 

I certainly didn't mean it as a harsh criticism (because you know I like you).  But I honestly don't get how you seem to think certain LDS have spoilt the Mormonism you found attractive.  Really, do you wish the author of Mormon Doctrine were still revered by a couple million Americans?  He promoted some pretty terrible ideas that didn't help anyone.  And anyhow, it's kinda hard to spoil something that's always changing.  That was really my point.  Kinda like the old adage about the rolling stone gathering no moss... 

--Erik 

"...spoil something that's always changing..."

Whether it is always changing or not. Those few LDS who resist inorganic development are those with whom I can identify best, and they would be the ones who would be better candidates for the Catholic faith. As I did with you, according to your recollection, I am trying to point Romeward. To be a progressivist that takes little care to resolve conflict and tension between present and past beliefs and practices in one's religion is inimical to the Catholic faith. There is significant growth and advancement in the Body of Christ, but it must be organic, from seed to the full grown tree. I do not invite happy LDS to convert to the Catholic faith, but I try to support beliefs, (even if they are contrary to "true Mormonism"), that are compatible with the Catholic faith.

I do not think one way or the other about whether "true Mormonism" should be always changing, or be more like Catholic Tradition. It would be to contradict my own faith to believe in "true Mormonism". But nobody is wrong about everything. If I can influence an individual in a false religion to believe one true thing, I believe I have done well. In the case of encouraging Mormons of the need to hold fast to "LDS tradition", I think it will make them better citizens and more friendly towards the true faith, than their progressive counterparts.

I have no particular attachment to McConkie. I just note that a book which was once considered authoritative has lost all credibility. I have asked kiwi some questions which when answered, might point to the probability that rather than hating black people, McConkie thought he was teaching what other Mormon doctrines necessarily implied when he made his remark about black people in the pre-existence. If the LDS doctrine on the pre-existence is that birth advantages and disadvantages are based on merit, would it not necessarily lead to a conclusion that people born in to better circumstances were more worthy? From an LDS perspective, it seems like if there is a doctrine of merit and demerit in the pre-existence, it would necessarily imply primary reasons for inequalities among all nations, races, and religions. Unequal in the pre-existence, unequal in the post-existence. The problem wouldn't be racism, but a doctrine that has implications that might be politically incorrect.

Rory   

PS: Thanks for the Tub Thumping. 19 Million views? Wow.

My favorite is around 350,000. Enjoy: 

PPS: I didn't mean to put up that big picture.

Edited February 5, 2018 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

And he also promoted some absolutely brilliant ideas that brought joy to a great many people.

The great thing about defaming the dead is that they can't sue.

So I'll go on record as saying that, whatever his faults may have been, Elder McConkie was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, and deserves better than your sneering dismissal.

An adage that has no relevance to the Church of Jesus Christ. Which, in essentials, is (in the words of Miss Bennet) "very much what [it] ever was."

Well said, especially the reference to Miss Bennett. Most apt and instructive. However, unlike McConkie's LDS detractors, at least five solas denies that Elder McConkie was an apostle.

3DOP

[Stargazer]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 8:21 PM, Metis_LDS said:

Maybe I am wrong about what I am going to write. I have attended church in three western countries and in one country I attended in three very different regions.   I am not blaming anyone as I am an old man now and know that life can be pretty tough.  What I saw was that the greatest missionary power lies in the happiness of the members.  What I also saw over the time from joining at 17 years old to now in my sixties was

less and less members being very happy at all.  Many have strong faith but the happiness does not shine forth like before. This is a great challenge and perhaps the greatest woe of the church in our time. Anyway it is what I feel I could be mistaken.

I am rather surprised at this, the idea that fewer and fewer members are happy. While I've spent most of my church life in one ward in Washington state, I have visited in other wards in Washington, and in England where I live now. The one thing that stands out to me that the members are quite happy.  Every single ward I have attended seemed to be hives of happiness and contentment. Perhaps the unhappy ones don't come to church?

[Metis_LDS]

37 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps the unhappy ones don't come to church?

 Yes you are correct that is normally how it works and then the missionary force is diminished.

I was not trying to be dramatic may be it was an age but there were many divorces and other serious

problems that led to unhappiness.  I tried to forget what I saw but it comes back from time to time like three

people who shall we say relocated themselves to the spirit world before there time.  These are first hand

that I know it was not a friend of a friend from another ward etc...

 

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I think its only just to try to understand why those who lost a war believed in fighting it. But it takes generations. Americans still have difficulty examining southern motives in the American Civil War. It is in part because those who win wars are often those who are best at vilifying the enemy.

Not to go down a tangent, but the South was pretty clear about their reasons. While tarrifs and the like were a part, the big part was slavery. Quoting Jefferson Davis: 

Quote

The right of property in slaves was protected by law. This property was recognized in the Constitution, and provision was made against its loss by the escape of the slave…

A persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated…the constitutional provision for their rendition to their owners was first evaded, then openly denounced as a violation of conscientious obligation and religious duty…owners of slaves (seeking to recapture escapees in the North) were mobbed and even murdered…laws were passed providing for the punishment, by ruinous fines and long-continued imprisonment in jails and penitentiaries, of citizens of the Southern States who should dare ask aid of the officers of the law for the recovery of their property.

Slavery was the big issue. The sad truth is that reconstruction should have gone much farther than it did. Had Lincoln not been assassinated it probably was. As it was the freed slaves right continued to be trampled with horrific practice and a continued low level guerrilla movement in the south and often shadow government.

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Anyway, back to the subject matter. Good job defending DCP. Do you think McConkie believed that the advantages or disadvantages of a person's birth situation has to do with worthiness in the pre-existence? Is that not a permissible position to take? Where may we learn that a person's birth situation is random according to LDS doctrine?

I think McConkie clearly thought that, although exactly what the advantages or disadvantages are aren't as clear as some make out. If we're sent where we need to progress then those sent into certain circumstances may be experiencing that for their growth. In which case our limited judgments about who's blessed or not are likely wrong. The worst statements were by Mark E. Peterson who clearly felt that blacks were black because of less vigilance in the pre-existence which is a false doctrine. But both he and McConkie and several others taught the idea they were cursed for vigilance. That's been repudiated including by McConkie himself.

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Anyway, back to the subject matter. Good job defending DCP. Do you think McConkie believed that the advantages or disadvantages of a person's birth situation has to do with worthiness in the pre-existence?

Yes, it seems that he did.

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Is that not a permissible position to take?

Not any more, although it clearly made sense at the time.

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Where may we learn that a person's birth situation is random according to LDS doctrine?

Actually I don't know that there is any doctrine to the effect that our birth situation is random. Rather, I think that the idea that our present circumstances are rewards and/or punishments is gone. We are where we are because it's part of the Lord's plan for us, not because we were better or worse than anyone else in the pre-mortal world.

[Five Solas]

On 2/5/2018 at 12:17 AM, kiwi57 said:

For that matter, what Mormon prophet or apostle ever argued such a thing?

Call for references, please. Support or retract.

...

It's getting pretty tough to find any statements on this topic using Google (someone appears to be vigorously enforcing their copyright on Packer's Mormon Doctrine).  But without quoting any of it, Wikipedia tells you this on the subject: 

In later printings of the second edition, changes were made to doctrinal statements regarding black people in the pre-mortal life. The 1969 printing retained the controversial statements, but printings of the second edition by 1978 reflected the new church policy.

That will suffice for your CFR.  Evidence that the words were there--even thought I can't quote them.  If anyone knows of citations from Mormon Doctrine that are still out there, please share.  If it requires encryption and a special browser, count me out.

;0)

--Erik

________________________________________________

He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past.

--George Orwell, 1984