Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, its not just me that considers LGBT individuals as having been the target of prejudice.  The church has officially sponsored legislation in Utah to protect this group against certain types of prejudice. However, Oaks wants to draw a line in the sand and define what counts as prejudice, and i would argue disagreeing with this line in the sand is an example of an Orwellian nightmare, I doubt that Orwell would agree with Oaks on this, but is rather just out of touch with the direction that society is going.  

I argued in my OP that Oaks is out of sync with the quote from Nelson.  I just added in this reply that he's also out of touch with the Church's attempts to help the LGBT community and build bridges there.  I think his claim is out of sync with core gospel principles to reach out to the marginalized with love and to accept all people as part of the body of Christ.  I have also commented in other replies on this same thread that its disingenuous to tell people that have a particular sexual orientation that isn't a choice, and then to tell them they have to choose to not have fulfilling sexual monogamous relationships.  This is a double standard and is inherently unfair and unnecessary.  

Actually, I think your accusation here should actually be turned back your way, as you've made no argument to support Oaks' statement other than to repeat the efficacy of the appeal to authority idea.  ..................

I thought that Oaks' address dealt exclusively with the 40-year anniversary of the 1978 revelation and his own personal responses to the priesthood ban issue.  Perhaps you could indicate to me (1) where the LGBTQI issues come into his comments, and (2) why you hate Oaks.  I don't understand either of those stances that you take.  When I analyze what someone says, I try to separate that analysis from how I may feel personally about the person.  Being fair and impartial is very important.

[CMZ]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Was it not the time because God still wanted to keep black people out of the temple and prevent them from holding the priesthood while letting church members believe false teachings about the curse of Cain and premortal lack of valiancy.  Or...

Could it have been that the Apostles and members weren't quite ready to accept what the Lord wanted?

Lol, no, I don't think it had anything to do with God wanting to keep black people out of the temple. And I don't think it was a matter of him letting people believe false teachings for a while (although there is always someone or other in the Church believing something that is not quite right... no big surprise there). Could it have been that the Apostles and members weren't quite ready to accept what the Lord wanted? Uh... I'm hesitant to think that explains everything about this when there were a number of prophets and apostles who were ready to accept it even before the ban was lifted and also knowing that every member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve accepted the revelation when it came. And also knowing that Russell M. Nelson received a revelation that if it had been a different president of the Church alive on June 1, 1978, that that prophet would still have accepted the revelation (sorry if I don't know the exact reference for that off-hand). I do think there may have been some component of the Church in general finally being ready for it, but if so I don't personally think it was the most important component.
 

Quote

For President Lee and for President Kimball, it was not a matter of "if" -- only "when" -- the Lord would give His revelatory sanction to lift the ban.

http://thegoateskids.blogspot.com/2011/02/blacks-and-priesthood.html

That does not sound like racism to me and it strikes me as extremely disingenuous for people to persist in reading racism into it.

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I didn't say that Oaks mentioned McKay and Smith.  I just assumed that you were aware that they were already thinking along the same lines back in the 60s (according to McKay's biographer) at the same time that Oaks was independently thinking the same thing:  That no basis could be found for the ban, and that the reasons given could not be verified.  That stark realization is very important in light of the 1978 public disavowal of those previously given reasons -- and Oaks mentions the fact.  If what you have been alleging were true, Oaks would not have made those points, which you regularly neglect to mention.  The Essay comes much later, and Oaks' views do align with them fully and completely.  I don't understand where you see the disjuncture.  Maybe you just don't understand the timeline.

Yes, as long as you actually reflect what those remarks are, which you have not done so far.

Where is the 1978 public disavowal of the previously taught reasons for the ban?

[rockpond]

53 minutes ago, CMZ said:

I'm sorry that I don't live on the board. This is something that can be found out through individual study.

I wouldn’t expect you to live on the board but you were actively responding and you apparently refuse to elaborate on this mysterious third option.  

Given your silence on this I am forced to conclude that there isn’t a supportable third option.  You unwillingness to answer the question speaks volumes. 

[CMZ]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Where is the 1978 public disavowal of the previously taught reasons for the ban?

Is it required for there to be one? Are you the one requiring it?

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Lol, no, I don't think it had anything to do with God wanting to keep black people out of the temple. And I don't think it was a matter of him letting people believe false teachings for a while (although there is always someone or other in the Church believing something that is not quite right... no big surprise there). Could it have been that the Apostles and members weren't quite ready to accept what the Lord wanted? Uh... I'm hesitant to think that explains everything about this when there were a number of prophets and apostles who were ready to accept it even before the ban was lifted and also knowing that every member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve accepted the revelation when it came. And also knowing that Russell M. Nelson received a revelation that if it had been a different president of the Church alive on June 1, 1978, that that prophet would still have accepted the revelation (sorry if I don't know the exact reference for that off-hand). I do think there may have been some component of the Church in general finally being ready for it, but if so I don't personally think it was the most important component.
 

That does not sound like racism to me and it strikes me as extremely disingenuous for people to persist in reading racism into it.

So your belief is that God didnt want to keep black people out of the temple nor did he want church members to continue believing the false ideas that the Brethren were teaching.  You also seem to believe that it wasn’t a matter of the Brethren not being ready to accept such a revelation earlier. 

Then why?  Why did it need to wait until 1978?

(As for calling it racist, I’m sorry but by definition the teachings were racist in nature.)

[CMZ]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I wouldn’t expect you to live on the board but you were actively responding and you apparently refuse to elaborate on this mysterious third option.  

Given your silence on this I am forced to conclude that there isn’t a supportable third option.  You unwillingness to answer the question speaks volumes. 

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Is it required for there to be one? Are you the one requiring it?

No and no.  But Robert claimed there was one.  I don’t recall that so I was interested in finding out if one did exist that I am not aware of. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, CMZ said:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

So it’s a mystery of God that black members couldn’t enter the temple for over 100 years?  This is the “third option”?

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So your belief is that God didnt want to keep black people out of the temple nor did he want church members to continue believing the false ideas that the Brethren were teaching.  You also seem to believe that it wasn’t a matter of the Brethren not being ready to accept such a revelation earlier. 

Then why?  Why did it need to wait until 1978?

(As for calling it racist, I’m sorry but by definition the teachings were racist in nature.)

I'm not saying that we can't find any quote anywhere that seems kind of racist. I am saying that it does not explain the whole thing. A good part of the explanation was given in general conference just a few recent years ago.

Quote

Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

I'll say it again but if nothing other than racism explains it and it was just some ill-advised policy then it wouldn't have needed a revelation from God to remove it.

[CMZ]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So it’s a mystery of God that black members couldn’t enter the temple for over 100 years?  This is the “third option”?

A mystery is a truth that hasn't yet been revealed to an individual. This very month's Ensign heavily implies that this particular matter is one of individual study.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, CMZ said:

I'm not saying that we can't find any quote anywhere that seems kind of racist. I am saying that it does not explain the whole thing. A good part of the explanation was given in general conference just a few recent years ago.

I'll say it again but if nothing other than racism explains it and it was just some ill-advised policy then it wouldn't have needed a revelation from God to remove it.

But if God didn’t want it and the Brethren were ready to accept a revelation ending it, why did it need to wait until 1978?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, CMZ said:

A mystery is a truth that hasn't yet been revealed to an individual. This very month's Ensign heavily implies that this particular matter is one of individual study.

Yep.  We’ll I’ve studied it and feel good about where I’ve landed on this matter. 

[CMZ]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

The apostasy narrative is one of many narratives taught by correlated Mormonism that are problematic because of their implications for the kind of God they create.  Not to mention a completely inaccurate reading of history and theology.  I suggest this book on that topic.  

 

https://www.amazon.com/Standing-Apart-Historical-Consciousness-Apostasy/dp/0199348146/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528232560&sr=8-1&keywords=standing+apart

 

Looking over the Amazon page for this book. It does sound interesting. From what people there are saying about it the book combats the idea that we must think of all Christianity before Joseph Smith came along as entirely evil and without worth. Well, fortunately I don't believe that way either. There have been many teachings in the Church honoring the things that led to the Restoration. Yes, there were many things of worth still around. But it doesn't mean a restoration was not needed.
 

Quote

The genuine and simple religion of Jesus will one day be restored; such as it was preached and practiced by Himself. Very soon after his death it became muffled up in mysteries, and has been ever since kept in concealment from the vulgar eye.

The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable as to shock reasonable thinkers.... Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been grafted into it by mythologists of the middle and modern ages.

I hold the precepts of Jesus, as delivered by himself, to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what came from him. . . . If the freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by law in theory, can ever rise in practice under the overbearing inquisition of public opinion, truth will prevail over fanaticism, and the genuine doctrines of Jesus, so long perverted by his pseudo-priests, will again be restored to their original purity. This reformation will advance with the other improvements of the human mind, but too late for me to witness it.

Thomas Jefferson, The American Covenant, page 391-392

 

Quote

 

Doctrine and Covenants 124:28

28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

 

 

[CMZ]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep.  We’ll I’ve studied it and feel good about where I’ve landed on this matter. 

Keep studying! Isn't it great that you aren't reliant on me for knowledge?

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by CMZ

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Keep studying!

I always do.  But I've already had a witness and confirmation on this matter.  So while I keep my mind open (thus the questions to you), it's not a particular focus for me.  No longer has a lot of relevance in my life.

ETA:  And I disagree that this is a mystery of God.  

Edited June 6, 2018 by rockpond

[CMZ]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I always do.  But I've already had a witness and confirmation on this matter.  So while I keep my mind open (thus the questions to you), it's not a particular focus for me.  No longer has a lot of relevance in my life.

ETA:  And I disagree that this is a mystery of God.  

So the answer you received from the Spirit is that the whole thing was racist?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CMZ said:

So the answer you received from the Spirit is that the whole thing was racist?

No... the Spirit didn't tell me that it was racist.  That is just basic logic and common sense.  The teachings were racist (definition: showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another).

What is confirmed to me is that the Brethren, over those decades, were operating with limited understanding.  I don't believe any of it was God's will.  It was a result of men making decisions and policies based on limited understanding and then working to explain those through their interpretation of scripture (which is how we got the teachings that later had to be disavowed).

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

No... the Spirit didn't tell me that it was racist.  That is just basic logic and common sense.  The teachings were racist (definition: showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another).

What is confirmed to me is that the Brethren, over those decades, were operating with limited understanding.  I don't believe any of it was God's will.  It was a result of men making decisions and policies based on limited understanding and then working to explain those through their interpretation of scripture (which is how we got the teachings that later had to be disavowed).

Well, keep studying. And, yes, Elder McConkie already stated that they were operating on limited understanding. No big revelation there. It still doesn't explain why a revelation was needed to remove it. And nobody alive now was responsible for the ban. So I'm not sure what grousing about it will accomplish.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Well, keep studying. And, yes, Elder McConkie already stated that they were operating on limited understanding. No big revelation there. It still doesn't explain why a revelation was needed to remove it. And nobody alive now was responsible for the ban. So I'm not sure what grousing about it will accomplish.

I'm not grousing... so I assume that comment is directed at others.  I dialogue here for the sake of greater understanding.

Elder McConkie's statement of limited understanding referred to the timing of the removal of the ban (that blacks would not hold the priesthood in mortality).  The full quote, with more context, was posted earlier in this thread.

I'm saying that the ban itself was a result of the Brethren (starting with Brigham Young) operating with limited understanding.  And that does explain why they thought that they needed a revelation:  In their minds, the ban was the will of God so God had to tell them to end it.

It's interesting that so far you have only said what you believe it was NOT (aside from saying that it is a mystery of God).  And your conclusions about it don't really align:  You don't seem to believe that it was God's will but you believe seem to believe that God need to tell the Brethren to end it.  Not sure how that makes any sense.  So, I guess it is you that needs to keep studying.  Like I said, I feel I've have my answers confirmed by the Spirit.

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by rockpond

[CMZ]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not grousing... so I assume that comment is directed at others.  I dialogue here for the sake of greater understanding.

Elder McConkie's statement of limited understanding referred to the timing of the removal of the ban (that blacks would not hold the priesthood in mortality).  The full quote, with more context, was posted earlier in this thread.

I'm saying that the ban itself was a result of the Brethren (starting with Brigham Young) operating with limited understanding.  And that does explain why they thought that they needed a revelation:  In their minds, the ban was the will of God so God had to tell them to end it.

It's interesting that so far you have only said what you believe it was NOT (aside from saying that it is a mystery of God).  And your conclusions about it don't really align:  You don't seem to believe that it was God's will but you believe seem to believe that God need to tell the Brethren to end it.  Not sure how that makes any sense.  So, I guess it is you that needs to keep studying.  Like I said, I feel I've have my answers confirmed by the Spirit.

 

Also take into account that there were times more recent prophets prayed about lifting it and felt strongly that the answer was, "Not yet."

I believe there was divine purpose to it even if mortal people did not always explain it well and even if some of those explanations were influenced by some individual in the Church having some degree of racism. Like when somebody says, "The Word of Wisdom says we should not drink any beverage with caffeine." Well, that's not what it says, but someone explaining it wrong doesn't mean the Word of Wisdom itself was not real.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Also take into account that there were times more recent prophets prayed about lifting it and felt strongly that the answer was, "Not yet."

I believe there was divine purpose to it even if mortal people did not always explain it well and even if some of those explanations were influenced by some individual in the Church having some degree of racism. Like when somebody says, "The Word of Wisdom says we should not drink any beverage with caffeine." Well, that's not what it says, but someone explaining it wrong doesn't mean the Word of Wisdom itself was not real.

What was the divine purpose?  This is confusing to me because earlier you stated that you did not believe that the ban was God's will.  How can it have a divine purpose but NOT be God's will?  (Divine means "of God")

p.s. I'm familiar with the McKay account of praying and getting an answer of "not yet".  And my understanding explains that.  But, I'm curious, where are the other accounts you refer to?

[CMZ]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What was the divine purpose?  This is confusing to me because earlier you stated that you did not believe that the ban was God's will.  How can it have a divine purpose but NOT be God's will?

Hmm, don't think I said that.

[CMZ]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/blessings-of-the-gospel-available-to-all?lang=eng

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Hmm, don't think I said that.

So you think that the ban was God's will?  He wanted black people to be denied the blessings of the temple for over a hundred years?