Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It does not serve justice to demand a “full-on apology” the way you seem to understand that term, i.e. acceptance of blame and culpability. You have not explained why you think anyone alive today is culpable for mass killings committed in 1857.  You have not explained why you think the Church as an institution is to blame for mass killings when it teaches against such things and when the Church president at the time sent explicit instructions — which arrived too late — for the settlers not to interfere with or molest the travelers who were coming through the territory. 

So I’ll pose the same question to you as I did to someone else. If you’re assigning blame to people who love today for mass murders that occurred in 1857, what do you think should happen to them? Should they go to prison? Should they be executed? 

I'm not speaking of liability or culpability from a legal sense.  I think an apology is needed and warranted and the Christlike thing to do.  I'm not making any claims of who's legally responsible for those wrongs in the past.  You seem concerned with elements that don't concern me.  I doubt that an institutional apology for something that happened over 150 yrs ago would get anyone sent to prison, I've never seen that happen before in our society.  

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not asking for an apology from you, not sure where you got that idea.  I do want a full apology from current church leaders.  They do represent the church publicly, and can speak for and on behalf of the church and its people.  Whether every member agrees with them or not is up to each individual member.  

I see that Scott has already asked what I would ask you now so I'll wait to read your response to Scott.  But FYI when the Church President or Presidency speaks, or the Quorum of the Twelve speak, they are speaking as individuals or for their quorum, rather than claiming to speak for the whole Church.

[2PairsofCletes]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not speaking of liability or culpability from a legal sense.  I think an apology is needed and warranted and the Christlike thing to do.  I'm not making any claims of who's legally responsible for those wrongs in the past.  You seem concerned with elements that don't concern me.  I doubt that an institutional apology for something that happened over 150 yrs ago would get anyone sent to prison, I've never seen that happen before in our society.  

Exactly. It's not about all the legal eagle wrangling.

It's about being Christ-like. It's about repentance. If we want our youth to know the value of repentance, it would help to see it come from the prophets seers and revelators at the head of the church. We don't hold the church to the high degree of infallible the way Catholics do the pope, do we?

There has been recent popes who have apologies for the wrongs done in their church's  past. Why can't we?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not speaking of liability or culpability from a legal sense.  I think an apology is needed and warranted and the Christlike thing to do.  I'm not making any claims of who's legally responsible for those wrongs in the past.  You seem concerned with elements that don't concern me.  I doubt that an institutional apology for something that happened over 150 yrs ago would get anyone sent to prison, I've never seen that happen before in our society.  

There’s nothing Christlike about demanding that people or entities assume blame for that for which they are not accountable. 

It is Christlike to express sympathy and profound regret for wrongs that others have committed in the past. This the Church has already done regarding Mountain Meadows — on at least two occasions. 

But you haven’t yet explained your philosophical basis for demanding someone assume blame where there is no accountability. 

The reason an “institutional apology” is unlikely to get anyone sent to prison is that the concept of guilt by proxy is absurd on its face. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Because guilt by proxy is an absurd concept. 

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not speaking of liability or culpability from a legal sense.  I think an apology is needed and warranted and the Christlike thing to do.  I'm not making any claims of who's legally responsible for those wrongs in the past.  You seem concerned with elements that don't concern me.  I doubt that an institutional apology for something that happened over 150 yrs ago would get anyone sent to prison, I've never seen that happen before in our society.  

So you're just asking for expressions of sorrow from our Church leaders about some people being restricted from receiving priesthood office, callings, or blessings?  If that's all I'm sure you can find comments from many who have already done that.

[Ahab]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Because guilt by proxy is an absurd concept. 

I think he has already said he's not asking them to feel guilty about it.  Just express sorrow about it.  And I think they have already done that.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think he has already said he's not asking them to feel guilty about it.  Just express sorrow about it.  And I think they have already done that.

Then why demand an apology, which implies acceptance of guilt?

By the way, that particular post was directed to 2pairsofcletes, who asked if Catholic popes do it “why can’t we”. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No coercion needed.  I'll believe evidence if it's presented.  The problem is that people are reading things into the text that aren't there.  Baptism didn't exist during the time 1 Kings was written.  

Baptism existed back then, just like I told you.  The problem is that you won't accept evidence unless it is written explicitly in the Bible. As if all scripture must be contained in only the Bible.

Your loss by choosing to reject other scriptures, messages written by other people who are also inspired by the Holy Ghost to write what they write or have written.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I don't think you're considering what some of their positions were as Jews.  Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin, and I believe other Jews with authority in the Jewish religion became Christians too. 

In your opinion.

The Joseph of Arimathea story is likely not historical. The gospels say that all the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus. Why would a disciple of Jesus condemn him to death and then provide a tomb for him? Historically, it's more likely that Jesus was put into a mass grave. In fact almost none of the Biblical information about Jesus' trial or burial is likely to be historical.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Gray

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

The Joseph of Arimathea story is likely not historical. The gospels say that all the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus. Why would a disciple of Jesus condemn him to death and then provide a tomb for him? Historically, it's more likely that Jesus was put into a mass grave. In fact almost none of the Biblical information about Jesus' trial or burial is likely to be historical.

All the Sanhedrin, collectively speaking.  They weren't unanimous, but they had enough of their quorum present to make their decision.

Looks like we disagree about a few things, possibly many things..

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

We all have some degree of control over the groups we are a part of, but for most people this degree of control is very small, but its ultimately a group effort.  This is the very crux of the errors made in the past in our church, and why not only the leaders were accountable but all members as well, those with pioneer ancestors and all of us have a collective interest in righting the wrongs of the past and making our society better today.  

This is why I found your articulation that God is going to right all those wrongs in the long term problematic, along with its accompanying implication that people like you and me in the present shouldn't make efforts to make the world a better place or to improve on our circumstances or to correct the mistakes of the past as best as we can.  

I'm not talking about being consumed by negativity and anger, although I would argue that those emotions have their place and shouldn't be negatively stereotyped, I am talking about being agents for change and taking action.  This is also a bedrock principle of the gospel as I understand it.  

I guess there is a degree to which we can help make others feel better if we personally have done something wrong.  Saying you are sorry, sincerely, always ameliorates situations.  However, knowing that I had southern ancestors who fought for the south in the Civil War and trying to make people of today feel better does not seem realistic or even possible.  The idea that I bear responsibility for the actions of my ancestors does not really make sense to me.  

I am fully committed to being a disciple of Jesus Christ.  The way I treat people is demonstrative of my commitment to being Christ-like. Being an agent of change - I get tired of these over-used phrases and the baggage they carry - is part and parcel of being a disciple of Jesus Christ, a LDS, a Christian, and a human that seeks to be a source of peace.

I don't think negativity has any place in one's life.  Anger has a very narrow space where it can be expressed righteously.  Humans are more often than not incapable of knowing how to express anger in a righteous manner.  

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

All the Sanhedrin, collectively speaking.  They weren't unanimous, but they had enough of their quorum present to make their decision.

Looks like we disagree about a few things, possibly many things.. 

It just says all the Sanhedrin, not a majority of the Sanhedrin. There's a lot of about the trial that is implausible, which is why (among other reasons) scholars consider it to be fictitious:

• Trials could not take place at night
• No trials at Passover
• No trials away from the temple
• No death sentences on the same day as the trial
• There was no blaspheme conviction for claiming to be the messiah
• Jewish leaders did have authority to execute, they would not have needed Roman intervention

The trial story serves as a polemic to condemn the Jews for not accepting Jesus. And of course Pilate is totally whitewashed as well. He would have executed Jesus at the drop of a hat.

Yes, I'm sure we disagree about a lot of things. That's okay!

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I see that Scott has already asked what I would ask you now so I'll wait to read your response to Scott.  But FYI when the Church President or Presidency speaks, or the Quorum of the Twelve speak, they are speaking as individuals or for their quorum, rather than claiming to speak for the whole Church.

I understand that.  Preferably they would issue a statement that is signed by the entire Q15.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, 2PairsofCletes said:

Exactly. It's not about all the legal eagle wrangling.

It's about being Christ-like. It's about repentance. If we want our youth to know the value of repentance, it would help to see it come from the prophets seers and revelators at the head of the church. We don't hold the church to the high degree of infallible the way Catholics do the pope, do we?

There has been recent popes who have apologies for the wrongs done in their church's  past. Why can't we?

Totally agree, the Catholic church has done this on various issues in recent years.  Thanks

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s nothing Christlike about demanding that people or entities assume blame for that for which they are not accountable. 

It is Christlike to express sympathy and profound regret for wrongs that others have committed in the past. This the Church has already done regarding Mountain Meadows — on at least two occasions. 

But you haven’t yet explained your philosophical basis for demanding someone assume blame where there is no accountability. 

The reason an “institutional apology” is unlikely to get anyone sent to prison is that the concept of guilt by proxy is absurd on its face. 

I guess we have a difference of opinion on what is Christlike.  

As for philosophy, I think its informed by an awareness that we've come to about racist history, imperialism, sexism, and all sorts of discrimination that we're coming to understand better as a society that prompts my desire to see a formal apology.  I would like to believe that the theologies of repentance, humility, empathy, reconciliation, becoming one with one another, all these concepts are contributing as well.   

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because guilt by proxy is an absurd concept. 

I thought Mormons were into proxy theology.  I could also point to scriptures that talk about the guilt of entire races and peoples and even the whole church.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

So you're just asking for expressions of sorrow from our Church leaders about some people being restricted from receiving priesthood office, callings, or blessings?  If that's all I'm sure you can find comments from many who have already done that.

Not at all.  A true apology would also include some solidarity with those who've suffered.  It might also include steps we're taking to be on a different path in the future.  Even though I disagreed with the execution of that fake apology fiasco during the recent NAACP meetings, the actual language of that apology was pretty good from my perspective.  In the fake apology it included language about putting a task force together to review scripture and to seek to find racist ideas that are not representative of the will of the divine and consider inspired updates to those passages.  It talked about things we can do today to be better informed and less prejudice.  I like that approach.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Baptism existed back then, just like I told you.  The problem is that you won't accept evidence unless it is written explicitly in the Bible. As if all scripture must be contained in only the Bible.

Your loss by choosing to reject other scriptures, messages written by other people who are also inspired by the Holy Ghost to write what they write or have written.

These things seem to go in circles a little.  I started with CMZ claiming a NT connection to temples, and me asking multiple times for evidence to support that claim from the NT, and he could find no evidence to support it, but was slow to admit that.  

Now I'll go that same round with you if you'd like.  Can you find any evidence to support your claim that Baptism existed at the time that 1 Kings was written.  Please feel free to start with the OT, but if you find other evidence of ancient origins outside of the OT, perhaps other scholarly evidence, please feel free to present that.  I would be interested in reading it as I haven't seen any convincing evidence of Baptism from that time period before.  

As for rejecting other scriptures, why do you think I've done that?  I like scriptures and I've found a lot of value in studying them critically, and devotionally throughout my life.  What's inspired by the HG is another personal and subjective question and it varies just like how people feel about works of art.  

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Not at all.  A true apology would also include some solidarity with those who've suffered.  It might also include steps we're taking to be on a different path in the future.  Even though I disagreed with the execution of that fake apology fiasco during the recent NAACP meetings, the actual language of that apology was pretty good from my perspective.  In the fake apology it included language about putting a task force together to review scripture and to seek to find racist ideas that are not representative of the will of the divine and consider inspired updates to those passages.  It talked about things we can do today to be better informed and less prejudice.  I like that approach.  

Elder Oak's talk was all about being "one" with those people who had been restricted from receiving the priesthood back then, when they were restricted, and how happy he was when they could instead come together as "one".  He talked about how much he had wanted the restriction lifted, and then when it was lifted by those who could lift it, how happy he was that it was lifted.  And he said or inferred that many other people felt the same way. 

The restriction is gone now, and as soon as it was lifted those who had once been restricted could then receive everything they had been denied by the restriction. It's now as if it never happened, as if we've already taken every step to be on a different path in the future.

You remind me of Lot's wife.  You're looking back, when you should be looking forward.

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I guess there is a degree to which we can help make others feel better if we personally have done something wrong.  Saying you are sorry, sincerely, always ameliorates situations.  However, knowing that I had southern ancestors who fought for the south in the Civil War and trying to make people of today feel better does not seem realistic or even possible.  The idea that I bear responsibility for the actions of my ancestors does not really make sense to me.  

I am fully committed to being a disciple of Jesus Christ.  The way I treat people is demonstrative of my commitment to being Christ-like. Being an agent of change - I get tired of these over-used phrases and the baggage they carry - is part and parcel of being a disciple of Jesus Christ, a LDS, a Christian, and a human that seeks to be a source of peace.

I don't think negativity has any place in one's life.  Anger has a very narrow space where it can be expressed righteously.  Humans are more often than not incapable of knowing how to express anger in a righteous manner.  

Anger is an emotion, its not good or evil by itself, only in the ways its wielded. 

As for helping others feel better, its very apparent to me after the fake apology fiasco, that many people would benefit from an actual heartfelt institutional apology.  The ways people were affected by that and offended when they found out it was fake showed just how sensitive this issue still is for many people. 

Mormonism teaches collective salvation and exaltation in its theology.  We can't be saved without our dead nor can they be saved without us.  This is core Mormonism, and the whole teachings of a Zion people all talk to this concept of collective salvation.  We're all connected and all in this together.  

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

These things seem to go in circles a little.  I started with CMZ claiming a NT connection to temples, and me asking multiple times for evidence to support that claim from the NT, and he could find no evidence to support it, but was slow to admit that.  

Now I'll go that same round with you if you'd like.  Can you find any evidence to support your claim that Baptism existed at the time that 1 Kings was written.  Please feel free to start with the OT, but if you find other evidence of ancient origins outside of the OT, perhaps other scholarly evidence, please feel free to present that.  I would be interested in reading it as I haven't seen any convincing evidence of Baptism from that time period before.  

As for rejecting other scriptures, why do you think I've done that?  I like scriptures and I've found a lot of value in studying them critically, and devotionally throughout my life.  What's inspired by the HG is another personal and subjective question and it varies just like how people feel about works of art.  

Did you read my post about the fact that the word "baptism" is Greek and wouldn't be in the OT Unless someone was inspired to translate the word "washings" used there into Greek?

And did you also read my comment about how we are not stuck without other scripture to inform and explain to us how baptism goes all the way back to Adam and Eve?

I think I've already giving you enough evidence to show you that baptism didn't begin with the NT.  I can't coerce you into believing what I have told you.

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

These things seem to go in circles a little.  I started with CMZ claiming a NT connection to temples, and me asking multiple times for evidence to support that claim from the NT, and he could find no evidence to support it, but was slow to admit that.  

Now I'll go that same round with you if you'd like.  Can you find any evidence to support your claim that Baptism existed at the time that 1 Kings was written.  Please feel free to start with the OT, but if you find other evidence of ancient origins outside of the OT, perhaps other scholarly evidence, please feel free to present that.  I would be interested in reading it as I haven't seen any convincing evidence of Baptism from that time period before.  

As for rejecting other scriptures, why do you think I've done that?  I like scriptures and I've found a lot of value in studying them critically, and devotionally throughout my life.  What's inspired by the HG is another personal and subjective question and it varies just like how people feel about works of art.  

There was an ancient bathing ritual for ritual purification, but not quite the same thing as what became the Christian baptism.  The purpose was different.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Elder Oak's talk was all about being "one" with those people who had been restricted from receiving the priesthood back then, when they were restricted, and how happy he was when they could instead come together as "one".  He talked about how much he had wanted the restriction lifted, and then when it was lifted by those who could lift it, how happy he was that it was lifted.  And he said or inferred that many other people felt the same way. 

The restriction is gone now, and as soon as it was lifted those who had once been restricted could then receive everything they had been denied by the restriction. It's now as if it never happened, as if we've already taken every step to be on a different path in the future.

You remind me of Lot's wife.  You're looking back, when you should be looking forward.

I don't want to rehash what I thought about Oaks talk because that's the entire thread, so you can re-read my OP and my points about the problematic elements of the talk itself. 

The idea that we're just going to move forward and ignore the past is a tactic that has been used frequently in politics to deflect criticism for many various scandals.  From Nixon to Clinton to Trump, this is a drum beat tactic to try and deflect criticism of actual problems that need correction and attention.  

As for Lot's wife, I think that while looking back in some circumstances could be detrimental, its absolutely essential in others in order to learn from the past.  Its naive and simplistic to say that looking back is a de facto unwise orientation, as if that's some kind of universal principle.  If this is how you interpret scripture that would be a terrible lesson to take and apply in the real world. 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Did you read my post about the fact that the word "baptism" is Greek and wouldn't be in the OT Unless someone was inspired to translate the word "washings" used there into Greek?

And did you also read my comment about how we are not stuck without other scripture to inform and explain to us how baptism goes all the way back to Adam and Eve?

I think I've already giving you enough evidence to show you that baptism didn't begin with the NT.  I can't coerce you into believing what I have told you.

Yes, so you are agreeing that you have no evidence from the OT (BTW, as I understand it there are other non-Greek sources texts of portions of the Hebrew bible that could be referenced as evidence.)  

As for going back to Adam and Eve, what ancient evidence do you have to support that claim? 

You haven't given me any evidence to show that baptism didn't begin in the NT that I can recall, perhaps I missed those posts?  If so, could you please share that evidence again or point me toward the posts where you provided that evidence.