1st Pres. and NAACP

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I said that my experience was spiritual, but none the less completely real.

Ok, I think I'm figuring out where there is a disconnect a little better.  I think you're pushing back against my use of the word subjective because you also think that subjective means that it isn't "completely real".  But that's not the case at all.  I believe subjective experiences are real and are some of the most powerful and important elements of life.  I'm not saying they aren't real at all.  

You also said that you're not claiming an objective experience, and you agreed with me that your personal experiences aren't independently verifiable or measurable using tools of science.  So it sounds like we have some agreement on what is objective and what is measurable.  

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I base my opinion on the scriptures and the related experiences of others. The scriptures tell us that the Holy Ghost is accessible to anyone that will seek Him. We have modern day examples of where people have been visited by angels and by prophets such as John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Elijah. It is hardly naive or arrogant to have had a confirming experience. I asked you about your own spiritual experiences to determine your level of experience in such things. One cannot describe something nor attest to the validity or invalidity of something they have never experienced. You acknowledged that you accept that I have had such an experience but yet you somehow know that I cannot know what it was, that I cannot know that the Holy Ghost is a real entity. You may not believe but that is as far as you can know.

Let me explain how I understand the history of the use of terms like the Holy Ghost to express religious experience.  Humans throughout history have had experiences that were profound and difficult to explain, the ineffable.  But at some point some human gave a label to these experiences and that label caught on and gained prominence.  The Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit, the spirit, being overcome by the spirit, all the various terms we have to describe experiences that people have are found throughout the Hebrew Bible and the Christian tradition.  There are many various additional descriptions found in texts and in traditions the world over.  And in Mormonism you have additional descriptions of these experiences.  All of them are somewhat different, sometimes the description is of a peaceful feeling, others describe their experiences more dramatically.  

Because all these experiences are attempting to put words and labels to experiences that often defy language, it complicates this subject.  But I'm fine with labeling the whole of these different and what I call subjective experiences, a large label like the Holy Ghost or religious spiritual experiences.  

This is where I believe you are taking liberties with how you are describing what you can learn from these experiences and applying that to how things should work for others.  You're taking a personal experience in combination with the unique and subjective experiences of others and trying to turn them into something objective.  Its almost like you're building a math equation out of independent and unrelated (but similar) phenomenon. 

You have experience A, and another person has experience B.  Both of you have differences in how you explain those experiences, but some similarities as well.  No objective tools were present to measure experiences A and B, no way for anyone independently to verify that there was something about these experiences that was actually similar in a measurable way.  Yet the language you use to describe experience A and the way the other person describes experience B has some similarities from your vantage point, so you believe that the combination of those descriptions allows you to say that A + B = C.  

You're turning two subjective and independent observations and using the human skill of pattern recognition to find similarities in these descriptions to say that these similarities are the equivalent of something objectively factual about the universe.  That is why you're willing to tell me or Gray or someone else that you know unequivocally that the Holy Ghost = X.  You're saying this a factually accurate statement in an objective sense.  You've crossed over from the subjective into the objective when you make a claim like that.  

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

As one who has actually had an experience with the Holy Ghost I can categorically say that you are wrong. Probably will have to wait until we both pass the mortal portals for us to be on the same page though.

Glenn

Another way to say Holy Ghost, and remain closer to the root Biblical words and concept, is to say sacred breath or wind. Ancient peoples understood the Holy Spirit as the power of God, not initially as a being. That doesn't mean it's wrong to recontextualize the Holy Ghost as a person, it's just not what it originally meant to people who used that term.

An interesting correlation to that ancient concept is that by controlling and focusing on one's breathing, it's very easy to experience the numinousness of the Holy Ghost. To me that doesn't take away from the sacredness of the experience, but it does give me context that informs my interpretation.

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

The critical thinking, such as in withholding judgment when info is incomplete, is often missing though.

I would be more prone not to somewhat dismissive of demands for transparency if I hadn't seen what many do with what little they have at this point...such as claims about Pres. Packer's home based on its current assessed value, ignoring how long he had owned it and the price when he bought it, the work he had put into it, the growth in the neighbourhood, etc.

add-on:  not saying there aren't those who would be intelligent and respectful in their approach to Church finance info, just saying there is so much of the disrespectful variety, it has turned me off of the idea of transparency.

Tithing for me is a test of faith.  Ensuring it goes where it should before I donate eats into that challenge for me.  My view is probably colored by experience with relatives who would give gifts, but only if we jumped through their hoops first.  The hoops were always well meaning, but treating us as children when we were adults didn't help the relationships (buying a piano for my family, but we would have to pay for half of it if after a year our kids weren't daily practicing on it, for example).

People misuse information, and people misuse the lack of misinformation, this is a people problem not a data problem.  Data doesn't discriminate, it has no agenda it has no opinion.  How people use it is the problem.  I get your concerns with how information can be misused, but this is no argument for just giving up and stopping the exploration because there are bad actors who twist results and misrepresent data.

This is why critical thinking skills are so important in our information age.  We have so much more data today than was ever available in the history of the world.  How we interpret this data becomes so very important.  I personally think this should make us much more humble, recognizing that there is so much that we really don't know and so many different angles to consider.  

I understand the tithing is a test of faith teaching and orientation.  I'm have no bones with that for those that want to just blindly give (I'm not trying to be rude, but that is in essence what many people do.)  But others of us want to know how the church is using this money from a stewardship perspective.  I think we should be mutually respectful of each others orientation.  I'm interested in knowing how church leaders are managing the money, I'm in the financial world for my profession and I have a strong opinion on this topic because of my proximity to finances in my profession and my skills with numbers and analytics.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Another way to say Holy Ghost, and remain closer to the root Biblical words and concept, is to say sacred breath or wind. Ancient peoples understood the Holy Spirit as the power of God, not initially as a being. That doesn't mean it's wrong to recontextualize the Holy Ghost as a person, it's just not what it originally meant to people who used that term.

.

This is sectarian dogma. Biblical root words that describe the power of the Holy Ghost do not rule out His being a person.

Besides, latter-day revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith clarified this concept and assuaged misunderstandings, both modern-day and, presumably, ancient, if there be any.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Are you saying that, for instance, requiring Catholic priests to be members of the Catholic church...

That is not equivalent at all.  It would be more equivalent to Mormonism only baptizing other Christians - all others are unworthy to hear the gospel.  That is discrimination.  If Mormons taught that non-Christians were unworthy to hear the gospel, you would likely be crying "discrimination".  

1 hour ago, Gray said:

This is nonsensical.

You said that non-Jews wouldn't understand Christianity.  If that really is the reason they discriminated (which I doubt), that is very condescending. They clearly were able to understand, and that would have been a false justification to discriminate.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

No, you're not putting enough effort to understand. Peter's revelation represents a transition period in Christian history, from Jewish reform movement to new religious movement.

Scholars disagree on this point.  I personally don't think Jesus viewed his movement as a Jewish reform movement.  He was not there to reform the law, but to fulfill it.  He brought with him a new law, completely unfamiliar to Judaism.  It absolutely was a new religious movement with initiation rites and ordinances which distinguished its followers from Jews.  His new movement held the keys of salvation alone.  He did not share those keys with Judaism (that is why your comparison of a Catholic priest being required to be a member of the Catholic church doesn't work).  Jesus was not under the umbrella and authority of Judaism.  He was his own authority, he was the "new" law.   

2 hours ago, Gray said:

You're misusing the word discrimination in an attempt to equivocate. Why?

I am not misusing the word.  Jesus discriminated.  He only allowed Jews to be taught an baptized.  That is discrimination.  Not even the Jews discriminated in such a way (according to you), they allowed for gentile converts.  So, why didn't he allow for gentile converts like the other Jews?  Why did he "discriminate"? 

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Let me explain how I understand the history of the use of terms like the Holy Ghost to express religious experience.  Humans throughout history have had experiences that were profound and difficult to explain, the ineffable.  But at some point some human gave a label to these experiences and that label caught on and gained prominence.  The Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit, the spirit, being overcome by the spirit, all the various terms we have to describe experiences that people have are found throughout the Hebrew Bible and the Christian tradition.  There are many various additional descriptions found in texts and in traditions the world over.  And in Mormonism you have additional descriptions of these experiences.  All of them are somewhat different, sometimes the description is of a peaceful feeling, others describe their experiences more dramatically.  

Because all these experiences are attempting to put words and labels to experiences that often defy language, it complicates this subject.  But I'm fine with labeling the whole of these different and what I call subjective experiences, a large label like the Holy Ghost or religious spiritual experiences.  

This is where I believe you are taking liberties with how you are describing what you can learn from these experiences and applying that to how things should work for others.  You're taking a personal experience in combination with the unique and subjective experiences of others and trying to turn them into something objective.  Its almost like you're building a math equation out of independent and unrelated (but similar) phenomenon. 

You have experience A, and another person has experience B.  Both of you have differences in how you explain those experiences, but some similarities as well.  No objective tools were present to measure experiences A and B, no way for anyone independently to verify that there was something about these experiences that was actually similar in a measurable way.  Yet the language you use to describe experience A and the way the other person describes experience B has some similarities from your vantage point, so you believe that the combination of those descriptions allows you to say that A + B = C.  

You're turning two subjective and independent observations and using the human skill of pattern recognition to find similarities in these descriptions to say that these similarities are the equivalent of something objectively factual about the universe.  That is why you're willing to tell me or Gray or someone else that you know unequivocally that the Holy Ghost = X.  You're saying this a factually accurate statement in an objective sense.  You've crossed over from the subjective into the objective when you make a claim like that.  

I understand where you are coming from. But I am not comparing my experience with any other person's. My main point throughout this is that I have received communication from the Holy Ghost and from that communication I know He is a real (spirit) person. It took me past a point where I had a strong conviction. You have your beliefs about that experience, and that is fine. If you ever have the occasion to meet the Holy Ghost in the manner that I did, you will come away with an altered perspective.

Glenn

[Gray]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

That is not equivalent at all.  It would be more equivalent to Mormonism only baptizing other Christians - all others are unworthy to hear the gospel.  That is discrimination.  If Mormons taught that non-Christians were unworthy to hear the gospel, you would likely be crying "discrimination".  

It is equivalent because Jesus wasn't starting a new religion. He was saying, "let's make Judaism better".

Are you crying because Mormons don't invite baptist pastors to bishop's training meetings?

 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

You said that non-Jews wouldn't understand Christianity.  If that really is the reason they discriminated (which I doubt), that is very condescending. They clearly were able to understand, and that would have been a false justification to discriminate.

To get Jesus' teachings (often consisting of ways to live the Law of Moses more correctly) you have to have a foundation of Judaism. It was only when Christianity became it's own unique religion that converting non-Jewish people to Christianity would even make sense.

 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Scholars disagree on this point.  I personally don't think Jesus viewed his movement as a Jewish reform movement.  He was not there to reform the law, but to fulfill it.

Fulfill doesn't mean do away with.

 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

He brought with him a new law, completely unfamiliar to Judaism.  It absolutely was a new religious movement with initiation rites and ordinances which distinguished its followers from Jews.

That didn't come until decades later.

 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

 His new movement held the keys of salvation alone.  He did not share those keys with Judaism (that is why your comparison of a Catholic priest being required to be a member of the Catholic church doesn't work).  Jesus was not under the umbrella and authority of Judaism.  He was his own authority, he was the "new" law.   

Jesus recognized the authority of the pharisees.

 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not misusing the word.  Jesus discriminated.  He only allowed Jews to be taught an baptized.  That is discrimination.  Not even the Jews discriminated in such a way (according to you), they allowed for gentile converts.  So, why didn't he allow for gentile converts like the other Jews?  Why did he "discriminate"? 

You are misusing the word. Baptism was a Jewish ritual. Is it meaningful to say that Mormons discriminate by only allowing members of the church to get their endowments? No, it's not. And you keep skipping over the fact that absolutely anyone could convert to Judaism, so no one was barred based on ethnicity or nationality.

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Another way to say Holy Ghost, and remain closer to the root Biblical words and concept, is to say sacred breath or wind.

I did not see anything like that when researching the root " pneuma" in the Greek lexicon. Could you provide some background and references? Thanks.

Glenn

[Gray]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

I did not see anything like that when researching the root " pneuma" in the Greek lexicon. Could you provide some background and references? Thanks.

Glenn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneuma

Quote

Pneuma (πνεῦμα) is an ancient Greek word for "breath", and in a religious context for "spirit" or "soul".[1][2] It has various technical meanings for medical writers and philosophers of classical antiquity, particularly in regard to physiology, and is also used in Greek translations of ruach רוח in the Hebrew Bible, and in the Greek New Testament. In classical philosophy, it is distinguishable from psyche (ψυχή), which originally meant "breath of life", but is regularly translated as "spirit" or most often "soul".[3]

 

The Hebrew equivalent is ruach, which also means breath/wind/spirit

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7307.htm

 

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots/Trinity/Holy_Spirit

 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I understand where you are coming from. But I am not comparing my experience with any other person's. My main point throughout this is that I have received communication from the Holy Ghost and from that communication I know He is a real (spirit) person. It took me past a point where I had a strong conviction. You have your beliefs about that experience, and that is fine. If you ever have the occasion to meet the Holy Ghost in the manner that I did, you will come away with an altered perspective.

Glenn

Ok, but I think you were claiming more than what you're summarizing here.  I have no contention with this statement whatsoever.  I'm glad you've had the experiences you've had.  I've had life impacting experiences as well and mine are unique to me, and the narrative I've constructed around my experience is unique to me, just as yours is unique to you.  I'm not diminishing the power of these experiences when I call them subjective. 

I was pushing back against your earlier statements that I saw as claiming your experiences proved something objectively that would be applicable to everyone in this world and not just applicable to how you perceive and understand the world.  Your religious perceptions are yours and mine are mine, and both of our perceptions are subjective when it comes to phenomenon like the Holy Ghost.

In case you are interested there have been some studies in recent years that cross over into the objective, one in particular where neuroscientists attempt to measure spiritual experiences and how look for trends on how brains respond to those experiences.  At the UoU there was one study recently by Michael Ferguson with some very interesting findings.  This is one example of some crossover between the subjective and the objective in case you're interested since it was conducted by people in the Mormon studies community.  

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/17470919.2016.1257437

Edited May 24, 2018 by hope_for_things

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Fulfill doesn't mean do away with.

Again, scholars disagree with your point that he was trying to reform Judaism. 

Neither does it mean to "reform".  It was complete, finished, consummate, and what ever other synonym you want to use.  It was ended. As Paul said, "we have been released from the law."  When I "fulfilled" my nursing requirements, my participation in the requirements ended, rather than being "reformed".

3 hours ago, Gray said:

That didn't come until decades later.

Christ instigated the new law in his lifetime.  In Matt 5, Christ basically goes point by point on how the law has been changed.  He basically says, "the law of Moses says this..., but I say this..." thereby asserting his authority above the law of Moses and the Pharisees.  He was not under their umbrella of authority.  Elsewhere he said, "this is the new law that I give unto you..."

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Jesus recognized the authority of the pharisees.

That is contested by scholars about the meaning of the "seat of Moses".

3 hours ago, Gray said:

You are misusing the word. Baptism was a Jewish ritual. Is it meaningful to say that Mormons discriminate by only allowing members of the church to get their endowments? No, it's not. And you keep skipping over the fact that absolutely anyone could convert to Judaism, so no one was barred based on ethnicity or nationality.

Did Saul and the Pharisees view Christ and his practices as a Jewish endowment or something separate?  That should be telling. 

I did address that fact - "You are not worthy to be taught unless you are a Jew".  Discrimination.   Think about it, if there was no discrimination, then the apostles could have preached to non-Jews and Jews alike - converting them first to Judaism, then to Christ's sect.  But that wasn't the case.  They were strictly commanded to only to preach to and convert the house of Israel.  They were restricted from even preaching to anyone else.  That is blatant discrimination.   

"You can tell these people about the good news, but not these people".  Discrimination.    

Again, that is not what was really happening. Unless you think Peter apostatized from the original intention of Jesus by baptizing non-Jews. 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by pogi

[Gray]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Again, scholars disagree with your point that he was trying to reform Judaism. 

Neither does it mean to "reform".  It was complete, finished, consummate, and what ever other synonym you want to use.  It was ended. As Paul said, "we have been released from the law."  When I "fulfilled" my nursing requirements, my participation in the requirements ended, rather than being "reformed".

What scholars disagree with me? I don't think anyone from a critical historical background is going to agree with your reading.  Paul's approach was quite radical in his day, to the point where he was obliged to backtrack on some of his anti-law rhetoric. There is no indication that Jesus ever intended to overturn the law of Moses.

 

Quote

Christ instigated the new law in his lifetime.  In Matt 5, Christ basically goes point by point on how the law has been changed.  He basically says, "the law of Moses says this..., but I say this..." thereby asserting his authority above the law of Moses and the Pharisees.  He was not under their umbrella of authority.  Elsewhere he said, "this is the new law that I give unto you..."

 

Matthew goes out of its way to say that the law will endure forever. Jesus' interpretation of the law is sometimes even MORE strict than the actual law. And it is an interpretation of the law - not a refutation of the law.

 

Quote

That is contested by scholars about the meaning of the "seat of Moses".

Did Saul and the Pharisees view Christ and his practices as a Jewish endowment or something separate?  That should be telling. 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here

 

Quote

I did address that fact - "You are not worthy to be taught unless you are a Jew".  Discrimination.   Think about it, if there was no discrimination, then the apostles could have preached to non-Jews and Jews alike - converting them first to Judaism, then to Christ's sect.  But that wasn't the case.  They were strictly commanded to only to preach to and convert the house of Israel.  They were restricted from even preaching to anyone else.  That is blatant discrimination.   

"You can tell these people about the good news, but not these people".  Discrimination.    

Again, that is not what was really happening. Unless you think Peter apostatized from the original intention of Jesus by baptizing non-Jews.

 

Why are you straining so hard to read modern bigotry back onto Jesus? Is it because if you can see Jesus as a "respecter of persons" you can justify in your own mind the LDS ban on black people having the priesthood?

The apostles weren't Jewish teachers, or experts in the law. The were unlearned fishermen. They wouldn't have been qualified to convert gentiles to Judaism. Like I said, functionally Christianity wasn't a new religion, it was just a new way of seeing Judaism. You needed a bedrock in Judaism for any of it to even make sense. Gentiles who wanted to convert could do so if they wanted, there was already a path for that.

And again, the good news had nothing to do with saving souls - it was about preparing Jewish people so that they could bring about the eschaton and finally have a just world. You keep reading anachronistic concepts back onto Jesus.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Gray

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Matthew goes out of its way to say that the law will endure forever. Jesus' interpretation of the law is sometimes even MORE strict than the actual law. And it is an interpretation of the law - not a refutation of the law.

I am confused.  I thought you said Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses.  If his mission was to fulfill the law, then how could it endure forever? If it is fulfilled, what is supposed to take it's place? 

Are you suggesting that modern Christianity has it all wrong, that the old covenant is still in effect (unfulfilled)

2 hours ago, Gray said:

And again, the good news had nothing to do with saving souls - it was about preparing Jewish people so that they could bring about the eschaton and finally have a just world. You keep reading anachronistic concepts back onto Jesus.

The good news wasn't that Christ came to atone for the sins of the world, and rise again the third day so that we too can be saved from death?  Why are you believe the Christian message then, if that wasn't his mission at all?

  

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Why are you straining so hard to read modern bigotry back onto Jesus? Is it because if you can see Jesus as a "respecter of persons" you can justify in your own mind the LDS ban on black people having the priesthood?

I am not accusing Jesus of bigotry.  I am simply pointing out the fact that discrimination happens in Christ's church.   We discriminate for all sorts of things - that is what the baptismal recommends are for.  We discriminate against smokers, adulterers, etc. etc.  Sometimes those reasons are easily explained, other times they are not.  You seem to have an explanation for why Christ discriminated against non-Jews, but for me the reason is not so clear.  Same with the blacks.  Was is justified by God?  I don't know.  I tend to think it was probably motivated by racism, given some of Brigham's comments, but it could have been that his racist comments were simply his fallible attempt at explaining something that he didn't fully understand.

I don't know why Christ discriminated against non-Jews temporarily.  I am confident that Christ understood that his message would eventually be shared with the gentiles as he revealed to both Peter and Ananias. 

Something I never noticed before until just now (reading about Saul's vision in Acts 9), Ananias received revelation that the gospel would be preached unto the gentiles before Peter ever had his vision.   

Quote

 

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

 

It seems strange to me that you think that Christ didn't originally intend to have the gospel preached unto the gentiles, as if he didn't understand his mission and the role of his church.  

And YES, Christ was building a new church and not simply reforming Judaism (Matt 16:18):

Quote

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by pogi

[Ryan Dahle]

On 5/24/2018 at 8:13 AM, hope_for_things said:

Ok, I think I'm figuring out where there is a disconnect a little better.  I think you're pushing back against my use of the word subjective because you also think that subjective means that it isn't "completely real".  But that's not the case at all.  I believe subjective experiences are real and are some of the most powerful and important elements of life.  I'm not saying they aren't real at all.  

You also said that you're not claiming an objective experience, and you agreed with me that your personal experiences aren't independently verifiable or measurable using tools of science.  So it sounds like we have some agreement on what is objective and what is measurable. 

If I may, here is how I look at this:

1. In one sense, all reality is subjective for each of us. We can never truly get into someone else's brain/spirit/person and perceive the world from their perspective. We only extrapolate what others might percieve based on evidence communicated to us through various sensory mediums (sight/sound/touch etc.).

2. On the other hand, most everyone believes that the universe as we know it is an objective reality. Even those prone to philosophically accept extreme relativity tend to act in most cases as if reality is truly objective. Virtually all fields of science and scholarly investigation take it as a given that reality is both objective and, at least in many instances, mutually discernible by different individuals.

3. So when we speak of an individual's views being objective or subjective, what we really are evaluating is if there are sound reasons to believe that the individual's subjective views indeed match objective reality. Most people feel that modern scientific methods, despite their limitations, provide the measuring rod as to whether someone's opinion should be considered "subjective" or "objective." 

4. When we take an issue like evaluating someone else's claimed spiritual experiences, it is appropriate to label them as subjective, considering that they are not testable using the scientific method. On the other hand, it should be understood that just because something is subjective, it doesn't mean that it is just in an individual's mind--or just real to them. Subjective opinions may or may not reflect true objective reality.

5. It seems sort of like when you labeled  Glenn's view as subjective, you were implying that it was only real to him, but not necessarily real. You didn't say this, but that seems to be your idea--that even false interpretations of real experiences are important because they are meaningful to the individuals who hold to those interpretations. And so he countered this view by affirming that even though he recognizes that his experience isn't scientifically testable (i.e. it is subjective), he nevertheless believes his interpretation of it appropriately describes true, objective reality--meaning he believes he truly did have a real experience with the Holy Ghost. 

6. Conclusion: Both parties agree Glenn's experience was subjective. Hope_for_things finds Glenn's interpretation of Glenn's experience to be valuable, not because Hope_for_things believes it accurately describes what really happened to Glenn, but because Glenn's interpretation is important to Glenn. In contrast, Glenn finds his interpretation of his experience to be valuable because he thinks it accurately describes what really happened to him.

Not sure if I captured the contrasting views accurately, but hopefully this helps resolve the disconnect in some way. 

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[Glenn101]

On 5/24/2018 at 4:24 PM, hope_for_things said:

Ok, but I think you were claiming more than what you're summarizing here.

If you will go back and reread my response to Gray, I was saying that ins response to his stated opinion. He feels, mush as you do, that it is more a learned response, aided and abetted by anecdotal accounts of interactions with the spiritual in the scriptures and personal accounts.

Glenn

[JAHS]

Interesting article about how polygamous marriages increased in a Mormon offshoot after blacks were given the priesthood:

"A recent blog about happenings in the polygamous Apostolic United Brethren church posed a question:
“If you find out from your DNA test that you have a percentage of Nigerian DNA, would you be worried about your right to the Priesthood and all of its blessings?”
For some respondents, the answer was yes.
“I would acknowledge that I don’t have authority, that my children don’t,” a commenter replied, “and I’d separate myself from my white spouse so as to not condemn her.”
But these fundamentalists believe in more than plural marriage. Their attitudes toward whether blacks can enter the priesthood, for instance, can be traced to the Bible story of Cain and Abel. Mormon folklore holds that the mark, or curse, God placed upon Cain was black skin.
“That curse will remain upon them,” Young is quoted in the “Journal of Discourses” as saying on Oct. 9, 1859, in Salt Lake City’s renowned Mormon Tabernacle, “and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof.”
Allred wondered aloud whether the LDS Church soon would endorse abortion and grant the priesthood to women, too.
He advised his followers to stop participating in the LDS Church and cease entering its temples.
“Do not go into a temple,” he preached, “that has been defiled by the Canaanite being invited into it.”
Lynch, who runs the blog in which she posted the DNA question, said AUB “old-timers” like her still believe blacks should not hold the priesthood, though she points out that younger generations are more flexible.
She believes in treating blacks equally in secular life and hopes for the day when they do receive the priesthood. But that permission must come directly from God, a revelation she and other fundamentalists believe Kimball never received.

They claim they believe in the temple rites as performed by the LDS church and even encourage their LDS members to participate, but then don't believe a revelation was received by Kimball on the priesthood.

Right after the Mormon church gave blacks the priesthood, a polygamous offshoot saw its ranks grow

[Gray]

On 5/25/2018 at 10:12 AM, pogi said:

I am confused.  I thought you said Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses.  If his mission was to fulfill the law, then how could it endure forever? If it is fulfilled, what is supposed to take it's place? 

Very often Christians hear the word "fulfill" and substitute "end" in their heads. I did that for most of my life. But fulfill doesn't mean to end.

Quote

Are you suggesting that modern Christianity has it all wrong, that the old covenant is still in effect (unfulfilled)

According to Matthew, yes. According to Paul, no.

 

Quote

The good news wasn't that Christ came to atone for the sins of the world, and rise again the third day so that we too can be saved from death?  Why are you believe the Christian message then, if that wasn't his mission at all?

 

Put it this way - that wasn't Jesus' mission, or if it was, he never told anyone about it in life. It's most likely that Jesus thought of himself as a prophet, like John the Baptist.

The interpretation you're talking about came years and decades later and came to represent an emerging Christian orthodoxy. Whether that interpretation was correct is entirely subjective. Maybe the apostles figured this new doctrine out by revelation. But it was a retrospective interpretation of Jesus.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not accusing Jesus of bigotry.  I am simply pointing out the fact that discrimination happens in Christ's church.   We discriminate for all sorts of things - that is what the baptismal recommends are for.  We discriminate against smokers, adulterers, etc. etc.  Sometimes those reasons are easily explained, other times they are not.  You seem to have an explanation for why Christ discriminated against non-Jews, but for me the reason is not so clear.  Same with the blacks.  Was is justified by God?  I don't know.  I tend to think it was probably motivated by racism, given some of Brigham's comments, but it could have been that his racist comments were simply his fallible attempt at explaining something that he didn't fully understand. 

I don't know why Christ discriminated against non-Jews temporarily.  I am confident that Christ understood that his message would eventually be shared with the gentiles as he revealed to both Peter and Ananias. 

Do you feel like there's a difference between not allowing an entire race of people to do something, vs requiring outsiders to convert to Judaism before you make disciples of them? I feel like the difference is night and day. It's like the difference between Jim Crow and requiring people to get their learner's permit before they can drive.

 

Quote

Something I never noticed before until just now (reading about Saul's vision in Acts 9), Ananias received revelation that the gospel would be preached unto the gentiles before Peter ever had his vision.   

It seems strange to me that you think that Christ didn't originally intend to have the gospel preached unto the gentiles, as if he didn't understand his mission and the role of his church.  

And YES, Christ was building a new church and not simply reforming Judaism (Matt 16:18): 

 

The scripture you refer to would have been a retrospective, and likely anachronistic interpretation of Jesus, not something the historical Jesus would have actually said. Remember, the gospels aren't histories, they're historical sources.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Gray

[pogi]

19 hours ago, Gray said:

Very often Christians here the word "fulfill" and substitute "end" in their heads. I did that for most of my life. But fulfill doesn't mean to end.

According to Matthew, yes. According to Paul, no.

I disagree.  I think Christ fully viewed the word "fulfill" as an accomplishment of the law...meaning, no longer needed.  It was a preparatory law, pointing to Christ and his sacrifice.  Christ put an end to the sacrifice of animals, as the law was fulfilled in his sacrifice.  The new covenant was a broken heart and a contrite spirit and the instigation of the sacrament. 

19 hours ago, Gray said:

Put it this way - that wasn't Jesus' mission, or if it was, he never told anyone about it in life. It's most likely that Jesus thought of himself as a prophet, like John the Baptist.

The interpretation you're talking about came years and decades later and came to represent an emerging Christian orthodoxy. Whether that interpretation was correct is entirely subjective. Maybe the apostles figured this new doctrine out by revelation. But it was a retrospective interpretation of Jesus.

In other words, Christianity is a sham.  I know better then that. 

Quote

 

"Here am I, send me" - Abraham 3:27

"To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world" - John 18:37

Matthew 16:21
From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Matthew 27:63
"Sir," they said, "we remember that while He was alive that deceiver said 'After three days I will rise again.'

Mark 9:31
because He was teaching His disciples. He told them, "The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill Him, and after three days He will rise."

Mark 10:33
"Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn Him to death and hand Him over to the Gentiles,

Mark 10:45 
The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

Matthew 26:28
This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins"

Luke 9:22
"The Son of Man must suffer many things," He said. "He must be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

John 10:11
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

John 15:12-13 
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

John 16:33
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

 

 

[Gray]

 

On 5/26/2018 at 4:40 PM, pogi said:

I disagree.  I think Christ fully viewed the word "fulfill" as an accomplishment of the law...meaning, no longer needed.  It was a preparatory law, pointing to Christ and his sacrifice.  Christ put an end to the sacrifice of animals, as the law was fulfilled in his sacrifice.  The new covenant was a broken heart and a contrite spirit and the instigation of the sacrament.  

That's a fine theological view, and what most Christians believe. But it can't be supported historically, if that matters to you.

 

On 5/26/2018 at 4:40 PM, pogi said:

 

In other words, Christianity is a sham.  I know better then that. 

 

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort.

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/19/2018 at 10:32 AM, Tacenda said:

Members were too racist to accept it earlier than 1978? Pretty darn sad lot then!

Were  you there?

Edited May 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/23/2018 at 2:17 PM, cinepro said:

Just in case people forget, there were only 10 apostles who participated in the actual meeting where it was decided to rescind the ban.  Mark E. Petersen was on assignment in South America, and Delbert Stapley was in the hospital.  Both were informed after the fact that the revelation had come and was going to be published, and both supported it, but they weren't there for any deliberation or voting that may have been conducted during the process of receiving that revelation.

On a totally unrelated note, Petersen and Stapley had a record of being more "traditional" in their views on race and the Priesthood.

I’m not understanding what you are saying. Are you suggesting the Prophet made his move because they were out of town at the time and that was his only chance to put it through? Had they been in the room when the Prophet received the revelation, do you suppose they would have opposed it? What was in their hearts at that time? I would like to know what you think. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/25/2018 at 8:12 AM, pogi said:

I am confused.  I thought you said Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses.  If his mission was to fulfill the law, then how could it endure forever?

How I do love the Book of Mormon!

“3 Nephi 15:2 And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.
3 And he said unto them: Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.
4 Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses.
5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.
6 Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you, shall all be fulfilled.
7 And because I said unto you that old things have passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come.
8 For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me.
9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.
10 Behold, I have given unto you the commandments; therefore keep my commandments. And this is the law and the prophets, for they truly testified of me.“

Ah, those plain and precious things. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Were  you there?

My comment should have included a question mark. I don't believe the answer that members weren't ready to accept the blacks receiving the priesthood earlier than the 1978. That's why I said it's pretty sad if it were true, but in my heart of hearts, it's only a few that weren't, because I believe in the goodness of most people.