Church to Celebrate 40 years since lifting the ban. He is what I hope happens.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

People throughout history do many things that they believe is condoned by God.  God is subjective.  Why do you think we have a gazillion different religious denominations all with people having a subjectively different experience with God?  

Why would you think your personal experience with God is any less subjective than everyone else through the history of humanity? 

Because my God is not made in my image. At least not mostly. I am working on it.

Also, God is not subjective. God is an objective fact. God either exists or he does not. He either spoke or he did not. Can the communication get garbled a bit? Sure, but God is objectively real.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Didn’t the Lafferty’s claim something similar?

No, the Lafferty’s claimed that the world did not approve of them killing her sister-in-Law but they wanted her dead. Different kind of clash. God generally does not have to tell you to do things you want to do.

Compare to, for example, Nephi who did not want to kill Laban but was commanded to.

I would, for example, be suspicious if someone said they got a revelation to eat nothing but cheesecake.....especially if they really like cheesecake. If a serial adulterer got a revelation to bring back plural marriage they are defying society but seeking to indulge themselves.

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, The Nehor said:

No, the Lafferty’s claimed that the world did not approve of them killing her sister-in-Law but they wanted her dead. Different kind of clash. God generally does not have to tell you to do things you want to do.

Compare to, for example, Nephi who did not want to kill Laban but was commanded to.

I would, for example, be suspicious if someone said they got a revelation to eat nothing but cheesecake.....especially if they really like cheesecake. If a serial adulterer got a revelation to bring back plural marriage they are defying society but seeking to indulge themselves.

Sometimes you go too far, much too far....there was no need to bring cheesecake into this!

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Sometimes you go too far, much too far....there was no need to bring cheesecake into this!

My friend at work today brought in some of her homemade cheesecake today and I am one of the blessed few she told so it is on my mind. Buying her Chik-Fil-A breakfast sandwiches all those times is paying serious dividends. I am down to one small meal for the rest of the day to hit my calorie count but WORTH IT!!

Edited April 20, 2018 by The Nehor

[Marginal Gains]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My friend at work today brought in some of her homemade cheesecake today and I am one of the blessed few she told so it is on my mind. Buying her Chik-Fil-A breakfast sandwiches all those times is paying serious dividends. I am down to one small meal for the rest of the day to hit my calorie count but WORTH IT!!

Cheesecake is only half the calories on Fridays.

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is because there is no precedent for God requiring apologies for social propriety or moral reasons (repentance doesn’t count because that is for the sinner and not the offended; turning the other cheek and forgiveness on the other hand is for the offended; becoming as a little child is for everybody).

I think the spirit of the gospel including the spirit of the principle of repentance applies to the institution.  I also think that when you try to say an institution isn't accountable for its actions that you're making an immoral argument that is hypocritical and dangerous.  

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

That the revelation is not a wrong supports my belief that an apology is not appropriate for its celebration.

I never said the revelation (lifting the priesthood ban) was a wrong.  I also don't understand what you mean by saying this supports your belief that an apology isn't needed.  How or in what way does this support your belief?  

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

Here is where you misrepresented the motives of the Church leaders (I thought it was obvious): Posted 7 hours ago “…church leaders finally realized… their racism.” Nothing of the sort is confessed or conveyed in the essay.

I recommend if you haven't read some of the events surrounding the 1978 revelation that you do so.  Ed Kimball's biography of his father is important.  This BYU studies essay he also wrote is helpful as well.  Let me quote one paragraph: 

Quote

Over time, through the many days in the temple and through the sleepless hours of the night, praying and turning over in his mind all the consequences, perplexities, and criticisms that a decision to extend priesthood would involve, Spencer gradually found “all those complications and concerns dwindling in significance.” They did not disappear but seemed to decline in importance. In spite of his preconceptions and his allegiance to the past, a swelling certainty grew that a change in policy was what the Lord wanted.133 “There grew slowly a deep, abiding impression to go forward with the change.”134

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/spencer-w-kimball-and-revelation-priesthood

I'm not misrepresenting Church leaders.  What I see happening in this scenario and in many others is a process for how change happens.  

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

The goodness we know that overshadows an expectation for an apology certainly differs from person to person, but the general sentiment of submission and forgiveness over entitled recompense reflects the fuller spirit of the Gospel, and the Church would be doing a disservice to her members to promote less, especially in connection with a celebration of revelation. She is a true and living Church for true and living people who become true and living saints.

This is very arrogant.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Polygamy and the Priesthood Ban reversals suggest God seems to come around to societies way of thinking, albeit late and begrudgingly.

It's not surprising that that's how you see it.

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Traela said:

I don't know why we had the Ban.  All I know for sure is that when I prayed for understanding, the answer I got was, "Did you ever consider that things could have been worse without the ban?"  Well, no I hadn't.  So I considered it.  The first thought that came to mind was how the KKK would have reacted once they realized that a black man could at any time be made the spiritual leader over a primarily white congregation.  Considering that Mormons were already unpopular in certain areas, things could have gotten very ugly.

Maybe the Church could have prevented the worst consequences by having separate wards or branches for Black members.  Or there might have been a soft ban, in which Black members, officially or unofficially, were not eligible to hold certain leadership positions.  However, both of those possibilities still create 2nd-class members (even if no one admits it), and neither one would force white members to face their prejudices as directly.  And both would probably be more difficult to overcome than the very clear-cut "Those of African descent couldn't hold the Priesthood, now they can.  Deal with it."  

I might be totally off the mark.  Maybe everything would have been just great without the ban: the Church would have been fully integrated, the world would have tolerated and eventually admired its openmindedness.  Unfortunately, I'm cynical enough to think it really unlikely.  Therefore, I'm willing to accept that just maybe the Lord was involved, and He knew what he was doing.

Things could have been much better as well, can you imagine a scenario where the church's efforts on this matter early on might have helped the entire country to move forward towards equality faster.  There are countless examples of progressive people and organizations who have been a positive catalysts for change.  Imagine a Mormonism where the church was leading the way on civil rights, rather than pushing against it.  It might have been amazing and inspirational.  

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because my God is not made in my image. At least not mostly. I am working on it.

Also, God is not subjective. God is an objective fact. God either exists or he does not. He either spoke or he did not. Can the communication get garbled a bit? Sure, but God is objectively real.

How is this different than how any other religious person thinks about their beliefs in God.  

Where God is "real" is a different question.  God is certainly not objective, you are misusing the word.  Try to give me any objective facts about God?  You can't, they don't exist.  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Things could have been much better as well, can you imagine a scenario where the church's efforts on this matter early on might have helped the entire country to move forward towards equality faster.  There are countless examples of progressive people and organizations who have been a positive catalysts for change.  Imagine a Mormonism where the church was leading the way on civil rights, rather than pushing against it.  It might have been amazing and inspirational.  

As opposed to that dull restoring the only way to eternal life and everlasting joy which is unamazing, uninspirational, and a little boring.

Edited April 20, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How is this different than how any other religious person thinks about their beliefs in God.  

Where God is "real" is a different question.  God is certainly not objective, you are misusing the word.  Try to give me any objective facts about God?  You can't, they don't exist.  

They are wrong and I am right. It is quite simple. Try and pay attention.

By that standard and I am deciding that you do not exist and you are a product of my deranged imagination. I am going to call a therapist to get help so I can utterly destroy you. Thanks for helping me reach this breakthrough.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As opposed to that dull restoring the only way to eternal life and everlasting joy which is unamazing, uninspirational, and a little dull.

So are you of the opinion then, the only way to eternal life and everlasting joy for us humans had to include restoring polygamy and instituting the priesthood/temple ban due to race?

Kind of a, God had to do it that way to adhere to eternal laws, type of reasoning?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Let's be a little more accurate.  What some outsiders think of the church.  Many outsiders think very highly of the church.  But yes I get that's what you are doing, but you are pointing it out as if that means something about the truth claims of the church.  

Well since we are going for accuracy here, you might want to mention that the Mormon church is the least liked among all Christian churches in America according to Pew study. But yes, that doesn't mean that there are many outsiders that do like the church.  I am only pointing out that if God did institute these doctrines, then it has put the church in very unfavorable light with the majority of Americans.  Kind of an odd plan for getting your children to find and embrace His church.  

Edited April 20, 2018 by california boy

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well since we are going for accuracy here, you might want to mention that the Mormon church is the least liked among all Christian churches in America according to Pew study. But yes, that doesn't mean that there are many outsiders that don't like the church.  I am only pointing out that if God did institute these doctrines, then it has put the church in very unfavorable light with the majority of Americans.  Kind of an odd plan for getting your children to find and embrace His church.  

"God wants it that way so only the special elected few will find reason to join".  Sadly, that is, by and large, the most prominent explanation I've found amongst members for the conundrum you raise.  

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

"God wants it that way so only the special elected few will find reason to join".  Sadly, that is, by and large, the most prominent explanation I've found amongst members for the conundrum you raise.  

Yep, apparently the CK only needs a select few. 

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

"God wants it that way so only the special elected few will find reason to join".  Sadly, that is, by and large, the most prominent explanation I've found amongst members for the conundrum you raise.  

Yes.  Indeed it appears that God only wanted less than 1% of His children to actually participate in The Plan of Salvation while in the mortal state.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I like you example with sexism, and I could say this is a perfect illustration of a problem that the church has.  Its priesthood policies are clearly sexist, they fit that definition perfectly.  Its priesthood bad was clearly racist, and also fits that definition perfectly.  

***

Lets discuss the actual reading of the essay. 

To be sexist and racist, a policy has to be aimed against women and blacks respectively as inferior beings to men and whites. No LDS priesthood policies were ever directed against women or blacks; they were not anti-woman or anti-black despite anyone’s errant beliefs about gender or racial superiority. Hence the essay condemns “ideas about racial inferiority” without condemning the ban as anti-black.

This is consistent with celebrating the 1978 revelation rather than either apologizing for or condemning the ban.

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well since we are going for accuracy here, you might want to mention that the Mormon church is the least liked among all Christian churches in America according to Pew study.

Kind of.  It depends on who is being asked. For example, Evangelicals get a 61 positive rating, but when you take out people who are Evangelical, the number falls.  In fact, roughly the same number of people gave them a positive rating as gave them a negative one (30% and 27% respectively). (Just an FYI-this is an old study.  A new one was released last year).

It's good to know though that we still come in above atheists.  Here's a good breakdown of how each group actually rated other religions.  Mormons don't come out too badly.

Quote

 I am only pointing out that if God did institute these doctrines, then it has put the church in very unfavorable light with the majority of Americans.  Kind of an odd plan for getting your children to find and embrace His church.

Is it though.  Can you share any evidence that suggests that it's odd for God not to care how His commandment are viewed by non-believers?

Edited April 20, 2018 by bluebell

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yep, apparently the CK only needs a select few. 

It's biblical doctrine that relatively few would accept Christ's gospel and follow Him.  

 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

you might want to mention that the Mormon church is the least liked among all Christian churches in America according to Pew study.

I don't think your statement accurately reflects the question the study was asking.  The question wasn't which church do you like best or dislike the most.  According to the study's question a score of 50 would indicate that the respondents did not feel positive or negative toward a church.  The LDS Church scored a 48. 

It's also interesting that the church scored lowest among respondents in familiarity with the church or knowing someone who belonged to that church.  This may indicated that knowing people who belong to a particular faith increased a persons acceptance of that faith.

Edited April 20, 2018 by ksfisher

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the spirit of the gospel including the spirit of the principle of repentance applies to the institution.  I also think that when you try to say an institution isn't accountable for its actions that you're making an immoral argument that is hypocritical and dangerous.  

I never said the revelation (lifting the priesthood ban) was a wrong.  I also don't understand what you mean by saying this supports your belief that an apology isn't needed.  How or in what way does this support your belief?  

I recommend if you haven't read some of the events surrounding the 1978 revelation that you do so.  Ed Kimball's biography of his father is important.  This BYU studies essay he also wrote is helpful as well.  Let me quote one paragraph: 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/spencer-w-kimball-and-revelation-priesthood

I'm not misrepresenting Church leaders.  What I see happening in this scenario and in many others is a process for how change happens.  

This is very arrogant.  

Again, repentance is not apology, and one certainly does not share the same attitude in seeking them. You may find that arrogant (and immoral, and hypocritical and dangerous, oh my!), but it's the message of the Beatitudes. Your lack of appreciating the difference, and inability to offer a scriptural precedent for institutional apology, undermines your rationale. Focus on that as to why I don't believe an apology is needed; evidently it's a bit easier to digest. I showed you how you misrepresented Church leaders, but if you don't want to admit it you don't have to apologize.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

 

Is it though.  Can you share any evidence that suggests that it's odd for God not to care how His commandment are viewed by non-believers?

I don't think you can really provide much in supporting the notion that God exists, let alone provide a ton of argument about what he cares about.  

The assumption, it seems to me, if God He has to care what people think.  But, I'll leave CB to respond.  

What happened as I read this though was I had a few thoughts, so I'm sharing for whoever may be interested.  

That is some weird thinking if you ask me.  If God doesn't care what some people think, then I have a hard time seeing God as caring about people, at least a particularly labeled set of people (non-believers).  If so, then what is God to me?  Not much.  He doesn't care about many to most of the people who have lived on such reasoning.  This all comes off as rather Calvinistic, I suppose.  (another way reformed theology helps to refine some of the rougher unpolished elements of Mormonism I suppose).

On the flip if God cares deeply about what the individual thinks, then He most certainly does care what those dirty non-believers think about his commandments.  It may be that a non-believer, as we perceive such a person, believes in ways we simply don't care.  It may be that a non-believer actually adheres to God and His ways moreso than any LDS believer.  whatever we define as His commandments may in the end, be rather irrelevant.  It may be that God wants something other than perfect obedience to commands that, in many cases, never originated with Him in the first place.  

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's biblical doctrine that relatively few would accept Christ's gospel and follow Him.  

 

Maybe so.  Does the bible specify throughout the world's history we'd see very few people accept Christ?  if so, where?

If so, it also makes one wonder, how seriously ought we to take the Bible.  For God must care about humanity, or else he isn't.  

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Maybe so.  Does the bible specify throughout the world's history we'd see very few people accept Christ?  if so, where?

If so, it also makes one wonder, how seriously ought we to take the Bible.  For God must care about humanity, or else he isn't.  

The scripture is in Matt. 7: 13-14. I'm not sure I understand your wondering though.  People have agency to choose to follow Christ or not.  If few accept Him, that has no bearing on whether or not God wants them to accept Him.  There is a difference between reporting what will happen, and causing or wanting it to happen.  I think you are conflating the two.  

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Kind of.  It depends on who is being asked. For example, Evangelicals get a 61 positive rating, but when you take out people who are Evangelical, the number falls.  In fact, roughly the same number of people gave them a positive rating as gave them a negative one (30% and 27% respectively). (Just an FYI-this is an old study.  A new one was released last year).

It's good to know though that we still come in above atheists.  Here's a good breakdown of how each group actually rated other religions.  Mormons don't come out too badly.

Is it though.  Can you share any evidence that suggests that it's odd for God not to care how His commandment are viewed by non-believers?

In the graph that you posted, Mormons are the least liked Christian religion among

Total Population

Protestants

White mainline

Black Protestants

Catholics

Unaffilated

Came in second place amongst Jews, Atheists and Agnostics.  No other Christian religion is thought of in such a negative light.

I am not sure what your question has to do with what we are talking about how the church is viewed by those outside Mormonism.  Convincing others that racism, multiple wives and preventing children of gay parents from being baptized is a good commandment revealed by God has proven to be difficult both outside the church and also many within the church.