What a wonderful event!

[CMZ]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What families have been barred from receiving eternal ordinances, if not here then in the hereafter, Tacenda?  It's interesting to me that when it is reported that ordinances were performed vicariously for some nefarious figure in history, the response of the naysayers is, Quelle Horreur!, yet when it is pointed out that those worthy and desiring of such ordinances may receive them, if not in this life, then in the next, the response of those very same naysayers is, "B... Bu... But, the Cruel, Mean, Cold, Heartless, Calloused Church of Jesus Christ is denying salvation to people!"  

Those two positions don't seem very consistent with one another, but perhaps I simply lack the logical erudition to understand their coherence.

 

 

The explanation is that some will do whatever it takes to argue against the Church even if consistency is thrown out the window. If one does not believe in the truthfulness of the Church then they should feel great about missionaries having not gone to predominantly black countries for a while (or whatever blacks and the priesthood situation you want to insert here); in that kind of situation the blacks are being spared involvement with a false religion.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

I did love most of it, but felt it ironic when showing the black families dancing and stories done in dance. It portrayed something akin to separation at points. And interesting that our church did prevent eternal marriage and families to be together by prohibiting them from the temple all those years...........................

And of course that was frankly admitted during the program.  I loved the honesty of it.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900020345/president-nelson-president-oaks-to-speak-tonight-at-lds-be-one-celebration-of-1978-revelation.html?_cid=Email-1&utm_campaign=9a82004fac-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_06_02_11_00&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Morning Edition&utm_term=0_c273c164df-9a82004fac-510802885 .

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

The explanation is that some will do whatever it takes to argue against the Church even if consistency is thrown out the window. If one does not believe in the truthfulness of the Church then they should feel great about missionaries having not gone to predominantly black countries for a while (or whatever blacks and the priesthood situation you want to insert here); in that kind of situation the blacks are being spared involvement with a false religion.

Sounds logical, but I'm afraid that the Mormons will always be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.  They can't win for losing . . .   Why?   'Cause the antis are two-faced.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, CMZ said:

What would constitute repentance in your eyes? And if you got what you wanted would you be active in the Church?

1) Repentance would be a public declaration that the ban was a mistake, and an apology.

2) I already am active in church

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I take it you do not accept the Biblical accounts then. Then where do you get the idea of God being good?

It would be foolish to take every Biblical account literally. The Bible is not a history book, and treating it as such is a distortion of the text.

God is good by definition. If God is evil then by definition God is no longer God.

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Sincere question, do you believe in the restoration of the Gospel and that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the instrument of that restoration?

Glenn

In a sense that's meaningful to me, yes. That is to say, I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet who restored important doctrines. But the way I see it probably wouln't be meaningful to you. That is to say, I don't understand the events of the restoration in literal, concrete terms (ie angels, priesthood as anything other than symbolic, etc).

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

We are not talking about Judaism. We are talking about the church Christ established as part of the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. Read the rst of the words that Christ spoke.

 

Jesus was Jewish, and his movement was Jewish. Christianity as you understand it came later. By the time Christianity was its own religion, anyone could join.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

God doesn't destroy the wicked? Since when?

Since the beginning of time.

[Avatar4321]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Since the beginning of time.

So the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Jaredite and Nephite destruction is just fantasy?

Edited June 4, 2018 by Avatar4321

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

And yet all could join the Church.

Some could only join as second class members.

 

13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Israelites avoided teaching gentiles for thousands of years and even when they joined priesthood was limited to the levites

 

Israel never proselyted. And yet, anyone could join if they wanted.

If the priesthood was just for the Levites, a priesthood ban on Africans becomes completely nonsensical, right?

But you bring up a good question. Who could become a Levite? Would you have to marry a Levite to be counted into that group? Something to explore. Some people think that the Levites were actually Egyptian in origin, and the Exodus story came from them. It probably can't be confirmed, but if it were true it would make a priesthood ban on Africans even more nonsensical.

[Gray]

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Not true. There were limits for certain nations - some had to wait up to ten generations to become part of the congregation. Under the Mosaic law an Egyptian wasn't part of the congregation until after 3 generations of marrying an Hebrew. 

 

Can you offer some citations?

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

So the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Jaredite and Nephite destruction is just fantasy?

You're quoting sacred literature, not history. No, the flood never happened, Sodom and Gomorrah never happened (those stories are commonly understood as a dig at Isreal's political enemies). And your Nephite example is irrelevant. Even if it were historical, they destroyed themselves.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Gray

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Can you offer some citations?

Deuteronomy 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

 

7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

8 The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation.

[BlueDreams]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I would have much rather watched a sit down conversation amongst the blacks and the leaders. This was really kind of over the top for me but did like some of the entertainers, and I liked the true stories. But it seemed too choreographed or controlled. Of course that needs to happen for a production like this. 

1. Why does the church always have the color coordinated outfits, such as like the Tabernacle Choir wear or the RS presidencies wear in church photos? I guess that is someone in the department making these decisions. 

2. I did love most of it, but felt it ironic when showing the black families dancing and stories done in dance. It portrayed something akin to separation at points. And interesting that our church did prevent eternal marriage and families to be together by prohibiting them from the temple all those years.

3. Loved the choir singing when Gladys Knight came out. We need to work on having more of this in our Sacrament singing time. We can learn a lot from the African Americans. They sure do love their God/Jesus and show it in their singing. 

 

1. It's pretty common for choirs and performing groups to color coordinate or have similar dress protocol. I'm confused as to how that's odd or even curious. 

2. Are you talking about the part that they were pulled apart? That was representing the larger story of how the black diaspora came to be. 

3. That's kinda worded weirdly. A) the larger choir is not simply AA. B) "their God/Jesus" sounds like its a different God. The sort of singing is cultural and some aren't as comfortable with it in sacrament worship. And I enjoy singing that way and have. I would love to see people's idea of church appropriate music expanded...but that may take a bit and I would rather it be organic to the ward in question. 

 

Overall, I enjoyed the show. My husband especially like the one African chant song. It's the Lord's prayer and he started singing along with it as we continued to unpack. I also liked the last Song a lot and appreciated both Oak's and Nelson's words. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Can someone help me with this quote. I have many issues with it but I'm particularly interested in the part bolded.

Quote

I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray

https://www.ldschurchnews.com/latest/2018-06-01/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration-47280 

I assume that many here will accept it as fact that the Lord rarely gives reasons for commandments but I'm wondering why that would be. It seems counterintuitive and unproductive. If the Lord is attempting to help us become something better and learn to govern ourselves based on correct principles, it makes no sense to me that He would "rarely" give reasons for commandments. Does a parent rarely explain to a child the reason why they are asked to do or not do certain things?

If God wants us to become like Him it would seem necessary to teach us why we do or don't do certain things. Otherwise obedience to those things is merely a loyalty test. Perhaps there is an argument that could be made for an occasional loyalty test...I guess...but loyalty tests strike me as fundamentally insecure. From history I can see examples of loyalty tests from dictators and organized crime which makes sense because they are insecure about their standing and the threats that surround them. God has no reason to worry about threats. I can't imagine God needs the ego boost of loyalty tests, so I can't understand the purpose of issuing loyalty tests. There are many commandments, but if the Lord rarely explains them, then that means there are many loyalty tests.

It seems it should be rare that a loving parent would NOT give reasons for the commandments he gives to his servants. I suspect many will disagree with my "loyalty test" explanation, which is fine. But can you supply a better one?

[2PairsofCletes]

On 6/2/2018 at 1:41 PM, jcake said:

I'm not a very radical person, but it does make me cringe a bit to see this celebration of the end of a bad policy that was put in place by leaders and completely unnecessary.  Although, maybe it is good to celebrate  a very belated end to a bad thing. I still feel ashamed at the whole situation.

 

I think the same way you do. I wanted, I needed an apology. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can someone help me with this quote. I have many issues with it but I'm particularly interested in the part bolded.

I assume that many here will accept it as fact that the Lord rarely gives reasons for commandments but I'm wondering why that would be. It seems counterintuitive and unproductive. If the Lord is attempting to help us become something better and learn to govern ourselves based on correct principles, it makes no sense to me that He would "rarely" give reasons for commandments. Does a parent rarely explain to a child the reason why they are asked to do or not do certain things?

If God wants us to become like Him it would seem necessary to teach us why we do or don't do certain things. Otherwise obedience to those things is merely a loyalty test. Perhaps there is an argument that could be made for an occasional loyalty test...I guess...but loyalty tests strike me as fundamentally insecure. From history I can see examples of loyalty tests from dictators and organized crime which makes sense because they are insecure about their standing and the threats that surround them. God has no reason to worry about threats. I can't imagine God needs the ego boost of loyalty tests, so I can't understand the purpose of issuing loyalty tests. There are many commandments, but if the Lord rarely explains them, then that means there are many loyalty tests.

It seems it should be rare that a loving parent would NOT give reasons for the commandments he gives to his servants. I suspect many will disagree with my "loyalty test" explanation, which is fine. But can you supply a better one?

Well, this seems like a question that would be pretty easy to answer. 

Find all the commandments that we have or were given in the past in the scriptures and then see if you can find examples of the Lord explaining why. 

I cant think of Him giving any “whys” off of the top of my head but I haven’t studied it at all. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, this seems like a question that would be pretty easy to answer. 

Find all the commandments that we have or were given in the past in the scriptures and then see if you can find examples of the Lord explaining why. 

I cant think of Him giving any “whys” off of the top of my head but I haven’t studied it at all. 

My question is more about why wouldn't he explain. The failure to explain would seem to undermine what I perceive to be his purpose.

Edited June 4, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Calm]

Maybe his commandments work better longterm if we each find our own purpose to do them through doing them.  Many things only achieve their real value through experience of them (for me, having a family for example).

Edited June 4, 2018 by Calm

[Gray]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Deuteronomy 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

 

7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

8 The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation.

 

Thanks, this is very helpful. Although it looks like there's a blanket ban on Ammonites and Moabites, beyond 10 generations, "for ever". Nevertheless, King David was descended from Ruth, a Moabite, so it seems as if this was a rule that fell by the wayside.

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

1. It's pretty common for choirs and performing groups to color coordinate or have similar dress protocol. I'm confused as to how that's odd or even curious. 

2. Are you talking about the part that they were pulled apart? That was representing the larger story of how the black diaspora came to be. 

3. That's kinda worded weirdly. A) the larger choir is not simply AA. B) "their God/Jesus" sounds like its a different God. The sort of singing is cultural and some aren't as comfortable with it in sacrament worship. And I enjoy singing that way and have. I would love to see people's idea of church appropriate music expanded...but that may take a bit and I would rather it be organic to the ward in question. 

 

Overall, I enjoyed the show. My husband especially like the one African chant song. It's the Lord's prayer and he started singing along with it as we continued to unpack. I also liked the last Song a lot and appreciated both Oak's and Nelson's words. 

3. (A) I should reiterate, I loved the choir and Gladys Knight! I loved how they sang in praise of Jesus, it kind of reminded me of the choirs in one of my favorite movies..."Joyful Noise". (B) I put "their" Jesus/God, because to me they sing and speak as if they have a personal relationship with Him, I guess. I think that's why, without thinking about it, I put "their". 

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

It would be foolish to take every Biblical account literally. The Bible is not a history book, and treating it as such is a distortion of the text.

God is good by definition. If God is evil then by definition God is no longer God.

In a sense that's meaningful to me, yes. That is to say, I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet who restored important doctrines. But the way I see it probably wouln't be meaningful to you. That is to say, I don't understand the events of the restoration in literal, concrete terms (ie angels, priesthood as anything other than symbolic, etc).

I do not think that we really can have a meaningful discussion on the matters. I have had such conversations with others who apply the scriptures in a rather unorthodox manner wherein anything that appears to be evil  acts of God are pretty much categorically ascribed to men or discounted as not literal. Yet we have no other scriptural or revelatory evidence to put on a figurative shelf events like God parting the Red or Reed Sea so the  the Children of Israel could cross on dry land only to allow the waters to return very rapidly to their natural state and drown the host of pursuing Egyptians. Or the flood, whether local or global is immaterial. According to the scriptures it was God that caused those events. Do you feel that any of the Biblical stories where God punished a group of people unto death are not literal? I am not criticizing such a belief, only trying to understand where you are coming from.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Thanks, this is very helpful. Although it looks like there's a blanket ban on Ammonites and Moabites, beyond 10 generations, "for ever". Nevertheless, King David was descended from Ruth, a Moabite, so it seems as if this was a rule that fell by the wayside.

 

Or an exception.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not think that we really can have a meaningful discussion on the matters. I have had such conversations with others who apply the scriptures in a rather unorthodox manner wherein anything that appears to be evil  acts of God are pretty much categorically ascribed to men or discounted as not literal. Yet we have no other scriptural or revelatory evidence to put on a figurative shelf events like God parting the Red or Reed Sea so the  the Children of Israel could cross on dry land only to allow the waters to return very rapidly to their natural state and drown the host of pursuing Egyptians. Or the flood, whether local or global is immaterial. According to the scriptures it was God that caused those events. Do you feel that any of the Biblical stories where God punished a group of people unto death are not literal? I am not criticizing such a belief, only trying to understand where you are coming from.

Glenn

I see what you're saying. Some people will selectively pick out stories that teach bad morality and say those are the ones not to be taken literally. I'm not selective like that. Whether a story in the Bible happened or not, to me is best judged by historical criteria, not theological criteria, at least in my worldview. For example,  I have no moral qualms with the story of Jesus being interred in the donated tomb. It's a beautiful story. But historically it's unlikely.

None of the stories in the Bible can be taken at face value as having happened as written or having happened at all. For me that's not the point. The stories are just the vehicle. The theology comes into how we interpret the stories, and what we conclude about God from them.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Or an exception.

Another example:

Naamah, a wife of Solomon and an Ammonite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naamah_(wife_of_Solomon)

 

Here's something that seems to apply to this thread:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab#Biblical_and_other_narratives

Quote

After the destruction of the First Temple, the knowledge of which people belonged to which nation was lost and the Moabites were treated the same as other gentiles. As a result, all members of the nations could convert to Judaism without restriction. The problem in Ezra and Nehemiah occurred because Jewish men married women from the various nations without their first converting to Judaism.

However, there is no citation for this claim.

[BlueDreams]

On 6/4/2018 at 12:56 PM, Tacenda said:

3. (A) I should reiterate, I loved the choir and Gladys Knight! I loved how they sang in praise of Jesus, it kind of reminded me of the choirs in one of my favorite movies..."Joyful Noise". (B) I put "their" Jesus/God, because to me they sing and speak as if they have a personal relationship with Him, I guess. I think that's why, without thinking about it, I put "their". 

They do. As do many, I assume, on this board and in many white(r) wards. Different people express that in different ways. And some of those differences show in cultural expressions of praise or reverence (ie. As in an act of revering, respect, and awe). My husband jokingly pointed out that the brown people in the choir were more happily/boisterously  singing while the white ones were more overwhelmed with tears. Obviously that is an exaggeration as i saw plenty brown/black people crying and plenty of white people more boisterous...but it does point to a cultural expression of a universal experience of love toward God and God’s word. Which is why I would hope it be an organic outlet in wards. Love for God and how one worships in an intimate experience.

 

With luv,

BD