Does anyone else have concerns about the current state of the church?

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was told to always wear shoes when my home teachers came to visit, no bare feet, maybe too sexual I'm thinking? I'm not lying, this was really told to us.

Nah, it is about reverence. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, haha! I was told several years ago not to wear dresses that have jeans material in them on Sunday, do you remember those? My Relief Society president was told to tell the women in our ward. Another time someone said we need to not wear flip flops, that was mainly toward the young women.

I was told to always wear shoes when my home teachers came to visit, no bare feet, maybe too sexual I'm thinking? I'm not lying, this was really told to us. Maybe from the stake president not sure, but he might have got the memo to tell us that.

And we were all told to only have one pair of earrings, that was in general conference.

But nowadays, we don't hear much about earrings or tattoo's thank goodness.

ETA: Papa, if you need me to respond to any of your posts about this, I ran out of my allotment of posts for the day.

Of course, send me a PM, I am always willing and hopeful to assist others in their struggles. 

[Rain]

On 12/4/2020 at 7:18 PM, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Those things are not from our Church leadership, as in our GA’s, and I don’t understand why bare feet is “too sexual”. Maybe you “disbelief” has to do with local leadership, trying to impose their own views upon you. But, thank you, that “barefoot thing”, gave me a laugh. Maybe I am missing something about bare feet being too sexual, living here in the sunny South, in the summer, bare feet are the norm. 

Actually, the earings was from President Hinckley and the flipflops was from an apostle - I think Elder Holland.

[Rain]

On 12/4/2020 at 7:22 PM, Calm said:

Nah, it is about reverence. 

It's about traditions and customs and sometimes clean carpets.  In some parts of the world you are expected to remove your shoes. Some people just make it a church thing.

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

It's about traditions and customs and sometimes clean carpets.  In some parts of the world you are expected to remove your shoes. Some people just make it a church thing.

All I remember is they politely asked women, not men, to not be barefoot when the home teachers visited. I wish I could find some witnesses to this and show I'm not lying. Barefoot being the operative word, so I'm thinking stocking feet would have sufficed, that made me think there was a "sexual" connection. 

[The Nehor]

On 12/3/2020 at 11:29 PM, LDS Watchman said:

There's also the fact the President Kimball wanted the change. He prayed about it for over a year (perhaps several years) without receiving an answer. Even though he hadn't received an answer he moved forward with planning to make the change. He talked to the members of the 12 and his councilors about it. They were all on board. He even told a black member to prepare to receive the priesthood all before the revelation was received. In fact from what I recall they had already prepared a statement lifting the ban before the revelation was received. In regards to the revelation, President Kimball prayed and told the Lord that he was going to make the change and if it was wrong to let him know. Then he and the rest of the brethren received the revelation to move forward. The revelation was not by an audible voice nor by vision. It was a feeling in their hearts and minds. Now this doesn't mean it wasn't a true revelation from God, but it doesn't mean it was either. It could have been what they wanted and the Lord finally relented like he did when he finally gave Joseph Smith permission to let Martin Harris take the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon home to his wife. I don't know. I find the whole thing troubling.

That is not a fact. President Kimball had steadfastly defended the status quo for decades. He prayed about it for years because he was stirred up to it. I think part of the reason God had President Kimball deal with this is that he was very conservative in his approach to change. Read his son’s study on the revelation and it is clear it was not something he pushed for despite God not wanting it.

As to it being about BYU sports.....I just do not even know how to respond to that accusation except that if you believe that the apostles are willing to toss the gospel aside over sports your perception of the apostles may need some work. That is a common anti- talking point to say the church caved to pressure and ignores the more likely looming problem that the opening of overseas temples was causing problems for members who were unsure if they could attend.

[LDS Watchman]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not a fact. President Kimball had steadfastly defended the status quo for decades. He prayed about it for years because he was stirred up to it. I think part of the reason God had President Kimball deal with this is that he was very conservative in his approach to change. Read his son’s study on the revelation and it is clear it was not something he pushed for despite God not wanting it.

As to it being about BYU sports.....I just do not even know how to respond to that accusation except that if you believe that the apostles are willing to toss the gospel aside over sports your perception of the apostles may need some work. That is a common anti- talking point to say the church caved to pressure and ignores the more likely looming problem that the opening of overseas temples was causing problems for members who were unsure if they could attend.

I'm familiar with President Kimball's son's perspective on the lifting of the priesthood ban. 

This doesn't change what Brigham Young taught about when blacks would receive the priesthood or what Zechariah 14 says. It also doesn't change everything else shared about the circumstances which led to the lifting of the ban.

Everything I shared is true. There was a lot of pressure on the church to lift the ban, both internally and externally. It's also a fact that there is strong evidence that President Kimball had reached the conclusion to lift the ban before the revelation was received in the temple. 

Clearly President Kimball wanted the change and eventually he received the revelation to move forward with what he wanted to do. Maybe it's what God wanted, maybe God simply allowed it, or maybe God is displeased with it. There's evidence to support all of these conclusions.

Edited December 6, 2020 by LDS Watchman
Corrected typo

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I'm familiar with President Kimball's son's perspective on the lifting of the priesthood ban. 

This doesn't change what Brigham Young taught about when blacks would receive the priesthood or what Zechariah 14 says. It also doesn't change everything else shared about the circumstances which led to the lifting of the ban.

Everything I shared is true. There was a lot of pressure on the church to lift the ban, both internally and externally. It's also a fact that there is strong evidence that President Kimball had reached the conclusion to lift the ban before the revelation was received in the temple. 

Clearly President Kimball wanted the change and eventually he received the revelation to move forward with what he wanted to do. Maybe it's what God wanted, maybe God simply allowed it, or maybe God is displeased with it. There's evidence to support all of these conclusions.

So what if President Kimball knew it would happen before the general revelation to the 12 or the later general revelation to the 70s.

Zechariah 14? What does that have to do with it? Oh, wait, yeah, I remember. So you are a racist then?

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by The Nehor

[LDS Watchman]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So what if President Kimball knew it would happen before the general revelation to the 12 or the later general revelation to the 70s.

Maybe there's nothing wrong with this and maybe there is. I'm not taking a hard line stance on this, just expressing some concerns. 

 

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Zechariah 14? What does that have to do with it? Oh, wait, yeah, I remember. So you are a racist then?

I guess it depends what you mean by racist?

Was Noah a racist for putting a curse on Canaan and his descendants and cursing the first Pharaoh in regards to the priesthood even though he was a righteous man? 

Were Abraham and Isaac racists for forbidding their sons from marrying the Canaanites? 

Was God a racist for forbidding the children of Israel from intermarrying with the Canaanites?

Was God a racist for cursing the Lamanites and putting a skin of blackness on them?

Was Nephi a racist for recording the curse and referring to the Lamanites as filthy and loathsome?

Was Joseph Smith a racist for teaching that blacks were descendants of Canaan and Cain and under a curse?

Were Joseph Smith's successors racists for continuing to teach that blacks were under a curse?

Zechariah 14 and the other scriptures about the Canaanites say what they say. Am I a racist for looking to the scriptures in order to understand the truth about the priesthood ban?

[InCognitus]

On 12/3/2020 at 8:38 PM, LDS Watchman said:

That's the crux of the issue. Do the many changes to the temple ordinances merely constitute a difference in presentation or are they changes to the ordinances themselves? Could go either way. Without question a great deal of truth has been removed over the years and symbolism has been lost. Covenants have been changed or altogether removed. That's something everyone who knows about the many changes will have to determine for themselves.

“Without question” truth has been removed and symbolism lost and covenants have been changed?  Really?  If that is truly “without question”, then why do you say “everyone who knows about the many changes will have to determine for themselves”, or that it “could go either way”?   This is undoubtedly the point put into question in your post.

I don’t see it the way you seem to be viewing it.  I trust that “the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people” (Dan 2:44).  The Lord directs his church today, and whatever changes are made in the presentation of the sacred ordinances, whether they be changes to the Sacrament (Doctrine and Covenants Section 27), or to the temple ceremonies, such changes are made by revelation to the prophets and apostles.  Consequently it doesn’t matter to me why the changes were made (because we as a people aren’t ready for portions of them, or if they are simply changes in presentation).  What does matter to me is that I keep those covenants to the best of my ability.   

On 12/3/2020 at 8:38 PM, LDS Watchman said:

I'll just say that I'm sure a Catholic would ask if there's really anything wrong with changing baptism from immersion to sprinkling. The symbolism of being washed clean with water is still there after all. Is changing baptism from immersion to sprinkling just a change in presentation? Hard to say isn't it.

It's not hard to say at all.  A Catholic would view the mode of baptism changes (if they even recognize them as a “change”) as being done under God’s direction through the authority of the church, the very apostolic authority they see as continuing after the death of the apostles.  I don’t see how this is any different than our view of the changes being done by divine authority through revelation in the restored church, other than that we see the early Christian changes as occurring without the direction of living apostles and prophets in the early stages of the apostasy, and the Catholics would see us as not having any authority at all.   A person could argue that the symbolism of the death, burial, and resurrection that is present in baptism by immersion (Romans 6) is removed by changing the mode of baptism to sprinkling, but that really is a secondary question to the issue of authority. 

On 12/3/2020 at 8:38 PM, LDS Watchman said:

I'm not taking a hard line stance on this, but I do feel that it's not a good sign that so much has been removed and changed from how the endowment was originally given. Either we can no longer handle the deeper truths and God had to take them away and give us the endowment in a watered down form so we members don't choke on the meat, or the brethren steadied the arc on their own to accomodate us because so many members were turned off by the strong doctrines taught in the original endowment. 

Based on some of the other posts you have made since you responded to my post, it looks as if you are taking a hard line stance on this.  I am seeing that you are thinking that the restored church has strayed into apostasy because of those (and other) changes.  Is that a correct understanding of your view?  

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Maybe there's nothing wrong with this and maybe there is. I'm not taking a hard line stance on this, just expressing some concerns. 

 

I guess it depends what you mean by racist?

Was Noah a racist for putting a curse on Canaan and his descendants and cursing the first Pharaoh in regards to the priesthood even though he was a righteous man? 

Were Abraham and Isaac racists for forbidding their sons from marrying the Canaanites? 

Was God a racist for forbidding the children of Israel from intermarrying with the Canaanites?

Was God a racist for cursing the Lamanites and putting a skin of blackness on them?

Was Nephi a racist for recording the curse and referring to the Lamanites as filthy and loathsome?

Was Joseph Smith a racist for teaching that blacks were descendants of Canaan and Cain and under a curse?

Were Joseph Smith's successors racists for continuing to teach that blacks were under a curse?

Zechariah 14 and the other scriptures about the Canaanites say what they say. Am I a racist for looking to the scriptures in order to understand the truth about the priesthood ban?

I have no idea what that Noah story was about. I have a suspicion but I am pretty sure it was not about melanin being evil because some guy saw his father naked so his son had to bear a curse.

Abraham and Isaac did not forbid it. Or, if they did, they were ignored. That also seemed more about faith than race.

Same with the Israelites.

Nephi and his people’s story show that the curse was not racial. It was removed from those who followed God immediately and given to those who rebelled. So no, not racist.

Joseph Smith did not explicitly teach such a racial curse. Scriptures refer to a curse but the rest is inferred. He also did not take it very seriously considering some of his priesthood ordinations.

Those who followed might have believed it was of God without disdain for another race. Anyone today who longs for the days of the Priesthood Ban is definitely a racist.

You are not looking to the scriptures. You are cherry picking. Where is the connection of Egypt to the subsaharan Africans who endured the Priesthood Ban? Were people in the 1800s from Egypt denied the Priesthood? No. So why is the curse on Egypt suddenly the curse on Ghana and Nigeria? It is a tortured reading of scripture. We have better and clearer scripture in the Book of Mormon that God denies none who come unto Him.

I don’t know why there was a ban. I can even respect those who lived under it and endured it who did so without delusions of racial superiority or inferiority. I do know that wanting the ban back is a racist desire.  To quote Elder Uchtdorf: “Stop it.”

[LDS Watchman]

52 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

“Without question” truth has been removed and symbolism lost and covenants have been changed?  Really?  If that is truly “without question”, then why do you say “everyone who knows about the many changes will have to determine for themselves”, or that it “could go either way”?   This is undoubtedly the point put into question in your post.

Truth has been removed and covenants have been changed and removed. This is simply a matter of fact. 

Whether God took these things away or whether the brethren did it on there own is a legitimate question. I'm not making my point into a question. My point is that this is what happened and now what? What does it mean? What are the implications?

And assuming best case scenario that God took them away, the implications aren't great in my opinion.

In many ways it's water under the bridge at this point. The changes are what they are. There's still a great deal of truth in the endowment. Even with the deletions and changes there's still much that can be gained from it if one is spiritually in tune. I did my first live session ever in the Salt Lake temple last summer and it was a very spiritual experience and very uplifting. 

52 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

A Catholic would view the mode of baptism changes (if they even recognize them as a “change”) as being done under God’s direction through the authority of the church, the very apostolic authority they see as continuing after the death of the apostles.  I don’t see how this is any different than our view of the changes being done by divine authority through revelation in the restored church, other than that we see the early Christian changes as occurring without the direction of living apostles and prophets in the early stages of the apostasy, and the Catholics would see us as not having any authority at all.   A person could argue that the symbolism of the death, burial, and resurrection that is present in baptism by immersion (Romans 6) is removed by changing the mode of baptism to sprinkling, but that really is a secondary question to the issue of authority. 

I agree that Catholics would say that the changes aren't really a change and that they don't impact the validity of their baptism because the changes were made by those who speak for God with his permission. 

Yet we know this isn't true and that the changes coupled with a loss of authority made their baptisms invalid. 

52 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I am seeing that you are thinking that the restored church has strayed into apostasy because of those (and other) changes.  Is that a correct understanding of your view?  

I think "apostasy" is a very loaded word. The reality is that the Lord's people throughout the ages have almost always been in apostasy to one degree or another. 

When it comes to the current state of the church I think errors have crept in and things have become corrupted to a certain extent. To what extent I'm not sure. 

Even though I think errors have crept in and that we have become corrupted to a certain extent, I don't believe that the Lord has rejected us. I believe this is still the Lord's one and only true church and that he is still working with us and through us and that we still retain authority from God. 

Edited December 7, 2020 by LDS Watchman
Typo

[LDS Watchman]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Joseph Smith did not explicitly teach such a racial curse. Scriptures refer to a curse but the rest is inferred. He also did not take it very seriously considering some of his priesthood ordinations.

Actually he did explicitly teach that the black race was under a curse and quoted quite a number of scriptures about it. Here's the most notable occasion in which he taught this:

"Letter to Oliver Cowdery, circa 9 April 1836," p. [289-291]

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/1

He also never ordained any black men. In Kirtland he did approved of the ordination of Elijah Abel, who was 1/8 black, but there's evidence he reached the conclusion that this was a mistake in Nauvoo. 

There were only a couple of other black men ordained during Joseph's lifetime and it's unknown whether he was aware of these ordinations or not. 

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Anyone today who longs for the days of the Priesthood Ban is definitely a racist.

Well, first of all I don't "long for the days of the priesthood ban."

What I long for is for the establishment of Zion and for the Lord's house to be set in order as promised in D&C 85 and many other places. 

The priesthood ban and the lifting of the ban is a very controversial and sensitive issue. Maybe the time had come to lift the ban in 1978 and maybe the brethren lifted the ban too soon.

Like I said, Brigham taught that the ban would be lifted after the millennium and Zechariah 14 suggests that it's at least possible that a mistake was made in lifting the ban before that, and that something will be done to correct this error prior to the millennium.

I don't long for the days of the ban. If it was up to me I would never have put a ban in place, because I have nothing against blacks or any other race. But it's not up to me. Only one thing matters, and that's what God decrees. 

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are not looking to the scriptures. You are cherry picking.

This could not be further from the truth. There a quite a few scriptures which discuss the status of Canaanites and the curse. It requires some piecing together, but no cherry picking. If you're interested I can share my research with you.

Cherry picking is taking one vague verse in the Book of Mormon about all be alike unto God and insisting that this means that there never was any curse and that all the scriptures and teachings about the curse are wrong. 

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t know why there was a ban.

I don't know all of the reasons either, but I have a pretty good idea that it had something to do with the preexistance. Back when the ban was still in place, the first presidency of the church put out several official statements declaring that this was the reason. This wasn't just a theory, this was official church doctrine. 

But I say let's drop the priesthood ban issue. There's no point in arguing over it. What's done is done. 

In the future we will know whether God approved of the lifting of the ban or not. We won't be able to settle the issue on an online forum. 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

He also never ordained any black men. In Kirtland he did approved of the ordination of Elijah Abel, who was 1/8 black, but there's evidence he reached the conclusion that this was a mistake in Nauvoo. 

Towards the end if you are not interested in the whole thing. 
 

Also:

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2015/03/25/was-elijah-ables-ordained-by-joseph-smith-a-response-to-w-paul-reeve/

Edited December 7, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

Is there any evidence besides Coltrin’s claims that suggest Joseph saw it as a mistake given there are major problems with Coltrin’s claim:

From wiki:

Quote

Coltrin claimed additionally, however, that Abel had been ordained to the Seventy in exchange for his work on the temples (at Kirtland and Nauvoo), but that Joseph Smith, after Coltrin later confronted him, and upon reflecting a moment on the matter, then realized his "error" and promptly "dropped" Abel, because of "his lineage", from the quorum.^[16]:39[32] Coltrin reported that he had this conversation with Joseph Smith in 1834, yet Abel didn't receive the priesthood nor did Coltrin ordain him a Seventy until 1836 (thus making it impossible for Abel to have been "dropped" from any such ordinal capacity in 1834), nor was construction even begun on the Nauvoo Temple until 1841.^[32] Joseph Smith's nephew and later-successor to the church presidency, Joseph F. Smith, contradicted Coltrin, in turn, by professing: "Coltrin's memory [is] incorrect as to Brother Abel being dropped from the quorum of Seventies to which he belonged" (italics added). Smith punctuated his statement by pointing out that he had verified as being in Abel's possession two certificates (which notarized the 1836/1841 priesthood licensings referenced above) that declared Abel to be a bonafide elder of the church and a Seventy.^[3][16]:39

Also:

http://www.blacklds.org/quotes

Edited December 7, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

I think you meant to to go to the LDS Freedom Forum and took a wrong turn. They like racism there. I got banned for repeatedly and viciously saying that Hitler was a bad person. Have fun.

[Tacenda]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Towards the end if you are not interested in the whole thing. 
 

Also:

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2015/03/25/was-elijah-ables-ordained-by-joseph-smith-a-response-to-w-paul-reeve/

I love Gospel Tangents!

[LDS Watchman]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Is there any evidence besides Coltrin’s claims that suggest Joseph saw it as a mistake given there are major problems with Coltrin’s claim:

From wiki:

Also:

http://www.blacklds.org/quotes

Zebedee Coltrin is the only person of whom I'm aware who said that Joseph received a revelation by the Holy Ghost that it was wrong to have ordained Elijah Abel.

Abraham O. Smoot gave a similar testimony that Joseph Smith had taught him and another brother that blacks could not have the priesthood, but didn't mention anything about Elijah Abel. 

There were others who said that Joseph Smith had taught that blacks couldn't have the priesthood as well. 

As for the Zebedee Coltrin quote, I don't think it's as problematic as many people would like to believe. He did get the year wrong. But this testimony was given 50 years after the fact. Dates are always sketchy when one is recalling an event from that long ago. The fact that he got the date mixed up does not discredit the essence of what he said. 

The issue of whether or not Elijah Abel was "dropped from the quorum of the seventy" or not is also subjective. It's possible that Elijah was never officially dropped from the quorum, but privately told that he was no longer authorized to exercise his priesthood and office of seventy. Assuming his testimony is true about the meeting with Joseph Smith, Zebedee Coltrin may have been one of the few to know about this. To Zebedee Coltrin this could very well have meant that Elijah Abel was "dropped from the quorum," even if he was never officially dropped.

I've given the blacks and the curse of Cain issue a great deal of study and thought. My conclusion is that Joseph Smith did discover that it was a mistake to have ordained Elijah Abel and that blacks could not have the priesthood. But out of respect for Elijah Abel and because there were almost no black members of the church at the time, the doctrine was kept quiet until it was necessary to be taught openly once more blacks were baptized. 

Joseph Smith taught that blacks were "sons of Ham", "sons of Canaan", and "sons of Cain" and that they were under a curse by God. He also taught that this curse had not yet been lifted by God. He typically addressed the issue of slavery in regards to the curse, but from Abraham 1 it is clear that the curse Joseph Smith was referring to also included a prohibition on bearing the priesthood. 

Since the lifting of the priesthood ban a big deal has been made about Elijah Abel. Often Elijah Abel is brought up as some kind of proof that Brigham Young was just some racist who hated blacks and so he wrongfully denied them the priesthood while Joseph Smith had previously given them the priesthood.

Even if we question the validity of the Zebedee Coltrin quote, the fact still remains that Elijah Abel was only 1/8 black and of a light complexion. He's clearly a very unique case who cannot be used as proof that Joseph Smith never taught that blacks were under a divine curse (which he absolutely did) and that they couldn't have the priesthood (which several individuals later said he had taught and which is also supported by Abraham 1).

 

[LDS Watchman]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think you meant to to go to the LDS Freedom Forum and took a wrong turn. They like racism there. I got banned for repeatedly and viciously saying that Hitler was a bad person. Have fun.

I don't appreciate you insinuating that I am a racist. 

I'm no more racist than all of the presidents and apostles of the church from Joseph Smith to Spencer W Kimball. I'm also no more racist than Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Ezra, Jesus Christ, and any other ancient prophet in the scriptures who mentioned this curse. 

I've already said if it was up to me I would never have even dreamed of prohibiting blacks from having the priesthood. I have no problem with any race and get along fine with people of all races, colors, and ethnic backgrounds. 

The issue of racism is an extremely sensitive and controversial topic today. In fact it's so sensitive and controversial that it's virtually impossible to have an intelligent conversation about what the scriptures and teachings of the prophets have to say about the descendants of Cain and the Canaanites and the connection these people of old have with the modern black Africans. 

Your charge of racism really isn't a charge against me. You are charging the prophets of God from the days of Adam to 1978 of being racist bigots. 

I didn't start this thread or join this forum with an agenda to discuss the priesthood ban. If you look over this thread you'll clearly see that I am not the one who brought up the issue of blacks and the priesthood. Several other people brought this up and asked me my opinion on it. In hindsight I probably should have just kept my mouth shut and kept what I know to myself so no one would be offended.

[Chum]

On 12/2/2020 at 1:02 AM, LDS Watchman said:

are obsessed with watching sports (even on the Sabbath)

To people who gripe about living around religion, I offer that I have to live around sportball. If they have a compromise to suggest . . .

Regarding the Church, I can offer that GA aren't lionizing pro-sportball players in GC, like they once did. I'd like to think that 1st presidencies recognized that Sunday sports employment doesn't rise to the level of critical public service. It's very reassuring.

[LDS Watchman]

10 minutes ago, Chum said:

To people who gripe about living around religion, I offer that I have to live around sportball. If they have a compromise to suggest . . .

Regarding the Church, I can offer that GA aren't lionizing pro-sportball players in GC, like they once did. I'd like to think that 1st presidencies recognized that Sunday sports employment doesn't rise to the level of critical public service. It's very reassuring.

Recently Elder Stevenson gave a talk in conference in which he presented several LDS professional athletes as role models for our youth.

While I liked his analogy of having a priesthood playbook, I found it disturbing that he would hold up men who I consider to be Sabbath breakers, who put the love of money and fame before God, as role models for our youth. 

Wish he would have stuck to high school or college athletes for his example and not these professional athletes. My teenage son is really big into sports and I've made it a point to teach him that playing sports on Sundays is wrong and that therefore it would be wrong to become a professional athlete. 

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Recently Elder Stevenson gave a talk in conference in which he presented several LDS professional athletes as role models for our youth.

While I liked his analogy of having a priesthood playbook, I found it disturbing that he would hold up men who I consider to be Sabbath breakers, who put the love of money and fame before God, as role models for our youth. 

Wish he would have stuck to high school or college athletes for his example and not these professional athletes. My teenage son is really big into sports and I've made it a point to teach him that playing sports on Sundays is wrong and that therefore it would be wrong to become a professional athlete. 

Aww, that would be sad for your son, who might have that in his sight. Did you know that the actual Sabbath is supposed to be on Saturday night? 

[Chum]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

Recently Elder Stevenson gave a talk in conference in which he presented several LDS professional athletes as role models for our youth.

 

For me too, this is a case where what GAs do don't align with my understanding.  I learned to be okay with that.

I think our (pretty much everyone) fallacy is that discrepancies must be reconciled.  The assumption is "You CAN NOT believe this AND that".  Well, that's not true at all.  I do it all the time. It means we lack the greater understanding that reconciles the two.

eg: Joseph Smith made mistakes! (lists dumb stuff Joseph did). Yes? And?  I accept Joseph screwed up and file that away. Later I piece together that Noah was a drunk, Jonah was a coward and Isiah was, I dunno, something.  I learn that a drunk, a coward and a guy who sucks at finances received the mantle of God and performed miraculous things. Because literally all God has to work with are screwups.

This is the end of my point. The rest is all babbling segue.

Also though, this is why I don't revere prophets. There's nothing wrong with it. I get why people do. But to me they're all just guys. Women, well women I can be in awe of just because. But guys are just guys. All guys. God calls us to do stuff. Sometimes we work hard. Sometimes miracle stuff happens while we're around - and that's the extent of it. We can't plan or schedule a miracle. God has to do all of that for us. Playing our A Game means that we followed carefully prepared instructions. More likely, thought, is that good stuff happened in spite of us. I'm actually okay with all of that. I'm fine with God painfully laying everything out, because not knowing what to do is miserable. Like getting a calling without any training. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Chum

[LDS Watchman]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you know that the actual Sabbath is supposed to be on Saturday night? 

Originally yes. But Sunday has been observed as "the Lord's day" since the resurrection of Christ and essentially took the place of the old Sabbath. 

Isaiah, who I believe was speaking to us modern Israel, told us to repent of our Sabbath breaking. President Nelson recently spoke of the Sabbath being a delight if we honor it, and he wasn't referring to Saturday, he was referring to Sunday. 

If it turns out that Saturday is still the day the Lord has decreed for us to keep Holy and rest from our labors then we are all in a boat load of trouble and only the Jews and Seventh Day Adventists are doing it right. 

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Aww, that would be sad for your son, who might have that in his sight. Did you know that the actual Sabbath is supposed to be on Saturday night? 

Whose Sabbath would that be? And would it not then end on Sunday night, thus making it inclusive of Sunday during the day?

If you are thinking of the Jewish Sabbath, that would begin at sundown on Friday and end at sundown on Saturday.