Be One (Teaser Trailer for the Celebration on the Priesthood)

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It makes sense to celebrate the triumph of truth over error.

But that only works if that is how the church is presenting the celebration, and it doesn't seem to be.  The church is the one who is putting the celebration on, so we have to look at the celebration from their perspective.  Only they can define what they are celebrating.

It doesn't make any sense to celebrate the triumph of truth over error but not tell anyone that's what they are doing.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think, much more broadly, that the message is simply "C'mon, you guys! Can't we get along? Let's put this behind us (it was, after all, 40 years ago) and celebrate our diversity and oneness *now*." That is, focusing on the positives of where we are now, rather than getting at all into whys, whats, and hows of the actual ban itself. It seems pretty clear to me that the Brethren don't want to talk about that or draw attention to it. Which does make a celebration of the ending gutsy, interesting, and complicated. 

My expectations are not that the broadcast will be amazing. I'm going with the usual Church production: underwhelming, anti-climactic, and schmalzy. 

All good points.  I agree. 

Even though I think this particular celebration is an awkward choice, there is much to like about the bold path President Nelson has taken these past few months.  

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But that only works if that is how the church is presenting the celebration, and it doesn't seem to be.  The church is the one who is putting the celebration on, so we have to look at the celebration from their perspective.  Only they can define what they are celebrating.

It doesn't make any sense to celebrate the triumph of truth over error but not tell anyone that's what they are doing.

We'll have to see what they're going to do. Hopefully this is the year that church leaders offer a clearer denunciation of the priesthood ban.

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

All good points.  I agree. 

Even though I think this particular celebration is an awkward choice, there is much to like about the bold path President Nelson has taken these past few months.  

That, in any case! It is refreshing to see such activity and decisiveness in doing things. I think it's clear that when the Nelson administration is remembered, this activity will be the hallmark. 

[juliann]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth, and be governed by it or not according to their wishes and abide the result; and that those who would be able to associate with the Gods in the eternal worlds. It is the same eternal programme. God knew it and Adam knew it. Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 22, p. 304S

 

I had never heard or I don't remember, the quote by John Taylor. What happened to the mouth piece of the Lord are the prophets. How does one know what they say is true? I think like polygamy, this is a mark on the church that will never go away. 

Sigh. Just like the horrific statements made by, I dunno, just about everybody and all religions of that time will never go away? (The LDS involvment in racism pales in comparison, statement/act compared to statement/act, BTW.) Nice race baiting, though. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

Sigh. Just like the horrific statements made by, I dunno, just about everybody and all religions of that time will never go away? (The LDS involvment in racism pales in comparison, statement/act compared to statement/act, BTW.) Nice race baiting, though. 

Tacenda quoted an address from an apostle.  None of us like what he said, but it's not fair to call it "race baiting".

Edited May 9, 2018 by rockpond

[juliann]

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'll also add that it would be awesome if the Church celebrated the 40th anniversary of OD2 by removing all of the "skin curse" scriptures from the standard works (especially those dealing with Cain, Ham and Egyptus).

It would be better if everybody just stopped reading race into verses where it doesn't exist. Here is an example of one of the verses we love to turn into race, 2 Ne 26:33, " and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."  How does the BOM itself use black and white in almost identical verses?

 

 

[Tacenda]

I wonder how much about the ban will even be spoken of in the "Be One" meeting. I doubt very much of it will be talked about. Nearly all in the audience won't even know the "ban" existed. I think it's all geared toward the youth and it will entail how they are to "be one" and then all that needs to be done.

[juliann]

(This belongs with my previous post. The board is doing very weird things)

Alma 1:30 And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.

 

And.....

Alma 11:44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Compare:

2 Ne: 26:33  For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Source: Marvin Perkins

Edited May 9, 2018 by juliann

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

Sigh. Just like the horrific statements made by, I dunno, just about everybody and all religions of that time will never go away? (The LDS involvment in racism pales in comparison, statement/act compared to statement/act, BTW.) Nice race baiting, though. 

race-baiting

noun, often attributive race-bait·ing \ ˈrās-ˌbā-tiŋ \

the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group

 

 

Tacenda might have been Mormon baiting, but not race baiting. John Taylor was race baiting. Yes, it wasn't limited to Mormon leaders, it was all over the US. Part of the ugliness of American culture that is still with us today.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Gray

[juliann]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Tacenda quoted an address from an apostle.  None of us like what he said, but it's not fair to call it "race baiting".

Out of any context, it is race baiting. Just as it would be if I suddenly splatted  up a shocking quote from the Baptists just to show how awful they were at one time. We can spend all day doing that. 

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

race-baiting

noun, often attributive race-bait·ing \ ˈrās-ˌbā-tiŋ \

the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group

Race-baiting

1. Baiting a racial group;

2. Baiting people, using racially-inflammatory issues or stereotypes.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

Race-baiting

1. Baiting a racial group;

2. Baiting people, using racially-inflammatory issues or stereotypes.

Is pointing out racism really race baiting? That doesn't sound right. I've heard this before on the forum - like someone can't criticize racism in the church without it being race baiting? If someone criticizes the racism in American south, is it race baiting?

Gender baiting is a similar concept, but it seems to be used this way:

"The enforcement of gender norms by disparaging or marginalizing those that violate them."

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

Out of any context, it is race baiting. Just as it would be if I suddenly splatted  up a shocking quote from the Baptists just to show how awful they were at one time. We can spend all day doing that. 

Okay, that makes sense. Not that further context makes John Taylor's statement NOT racist. But context reveals a deeply racist America, which Mormonism took part in and unfortunately didn't have the clarity of vision to rise above, at least until recently.

[juliann]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Is pointing out racism really race baiting? That doesn't sound right.

 

Again, a random racially inflammatory bomb that is not remarkable (unfortunately) is not dialogue. Are we now to be treated to every disgusting comment made about gays and women? They have been discussed as well. The problem is that in that time period, there were not only racist statements, there was outright brutality, it goes on and on. If her premise was true, all churches would be having trouble emerging from it. They all did it. But they aren't, which is why she has to drop bombs. The church's problem is the unwillingness to acknowledge their history not the history itself. In the words of Marvin Perkins again, everything was racist. It is inescapable. It is what happens now that matters or the black race wouldn't be able to interact at all if previous racism was a barrier. 

 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

The church's problem is the unwillingness to acknowledge their history not the history itself.

The problem here is that good people disagree about the how and what with this acknowledgment. Some dogmatically insist that this can only consist of a full mea culpa, or it isn't useful, genuine, etc. Other smart and good people strongly disagree with this, which feeds into the feedback loop by the dogmatists that this disagreement is prima facia evidence of inescapable racism. It's an unfair self-fulfilling prophecy to insist that if you disagree with the insistence, then you simply have your head in the sand about the Church's and your own racism. This course suggests that the only alternative is Communist-style re-education until you, too, agree that 2 + 2 = 5. It puts the race educators in the role of Big Brother, and the Church in the role of Winston Smith.

In the words of Marvin Perkins again, everything was racist. It is inescapable. It is what happens now that matters or the black race wouldn't be able to interact at all if previous racism was a barrier.

But we now interact very well, and have for some time. What does that tell us? 

Doesn't matter --- if you disagree about past Church racism, off to the re-education camps with you!  

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

race-baiting

noun, often attributive race-bait·ing \ ˈrās-ˌbā-tiŋ \

the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group

 

 

Tacenda might have been Mormon baiting, but not race baiting. John Taylor was race baiting. Yes, it wasn't limited to Mormon leaders, it was all over the US. Part of the ugliness of American culture that is still with us today.

bold mine

And we as the only true church with a special line from God, should have known better and yet we're sometimes a day late and a dollar short when it comes to these particular situations.

The page with the link to where this quote from John Taylor came from is not to be found, if it weren't for other websites it may be lost forever. I guess that would be a good thing, or would it? Maybe like the holocaust, we can never forget how racism is so wrong and not of God.

[SouthernMo]

I'd encourage anyone commenting on this thread to read the section of Doctrine & Covenants that this video references.

It reads to me that while Christ reveals many aspects of 'one-ness' in this recorded revelation, the context immediately preceding 38:27 is about economic equity.

The section also seems to note that in this revelation Christ is speaking to the congregation present at that January conference when he commands them to be one.

 

While I am a FIRM believer that I need to do a WAY better job of loving all mankind, no matter what race, sexuality, gender, belief, etc, I don't think the scripture quoted in the vignette has anything to do with the lifting of the ban.  I have a hard time when scriptures are used/quoted out of context.

 

If we're going to celebrate this change in practice, the message would be more effective on me if those leaders speaking at this event discuss scripture and teaching on the subject of racial equality and one-ness.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I'd encourage anyone commenting on this thread to read the section of Doctrine & Covenants that this video references.

It reads to me that while Christ reveals many aspects of 'one-ness' in this recorded revelation, the context immediately preceding 38:27 is about economic equity.

The section also seems to note that in this revelation Christ is speaking to the congregation present at that January conference when he commands them to be one.

 

While I am a FIRM believer that I need to do a WAY better job of loving all mankind, no matter what race, sexuality, gender, belief, etc, I don't think the scripture quoted in the vignette has anything to do with the lifting of the ban.  I have a hard time when scriptures are used/quoted out of context.

 

If we're going to celebrate this change in practice, the message would be more effective on me if those leaders speaking at this event discuss scripture and teaching on the subject of racial equality and one-ness.

Oops, hopefully the church will do better at looking for a better scripture to share.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I'd encourage anyone commenting on this thread to read the section of Doctrine & Covenants that this video references.

It reads to me that while Christ reveals many aspects of 'one-ness' in this recorded revelation, the context immediately preceding 38:27 is about economic equity.

The section also seems to note that in this revelation Christ is speaking to the congregation present at that January conference when he commands them to be one.

 

While I am a FIRM believer that I need to do a WAY better job of loving all mankind, no matter what race, sexuality, gender, belief, etc, I don't think the scripture quoted in the vignette has anything to do with the lifting of the ban.  I have a hard time when scriptures are used/quoted out of context.

 

If we're going to celebrate this change in practice, the message would be more effective on me if those leaders speaking at this event discuss scripture and teaching on the subject of racial equality and one-ness.

What verses does the video reference?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

bold mine

And we as the only true church with a special line from God, should have known better and yet we're sometimes a day late and a dollar short when it comes to these particular situations.

The page with the link to where this quote from John Taylor came from is not to be found, if it weren't for other websites it may be lost forever. I guess that would be a good thing, or would it? Maybe like the holocaust, we can never forget how racism is so wrong and not of God.

I think the takeaway is that no organization has a special line to God. We're all stumbling and learning, and that's the real revelation. Some people see further than others, but they come from all walks of life, and all kinds of traditions. The rest of us bumble along and finally catch the vision much later. Revelation works the same way as everything else in the universe - it's evolutionary.

That which makes groups cohesive can also make them slow to catch the vision of new revelation. Life is full of paradoxes.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Gray

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What verses does the video reference?

D&C 38:27

[mfbukowski]

On 5/5/2018 at 4:44 PM, Maidservant said:

Beautiful.  Love it.

 

It is, and then the thread immediately devolves into all the "reasons" for division

Sigh. Very sad

[mfbukowski]

Duplicate 

Edited May 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Oh gosh. Triplicate 

Edited May 9, 2018 by mfbukowski