kimpearson Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said: Correct. It's not actually a proclamation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proclamations_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles No Just a statement from the first presidency since we are debating words now. I guess some believe a statement from the first presidency is clearly just their opinion where as a proclamation is definitely doctrine.
jkwilliams Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, Teancum said: You are a wonderful person Jkwilliams. Merry Christmas to you and yours also. I may be driving through your neck of the woods next June. If so let's catch up. Please do! I’m honored to be your friend. Merry Christmas to you, too! 2
Popular Post JustAnAustralian Posted December 23, 2021 Popular Post Posted December 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Sorry that my source offended you. How about this one from FAIR? I can't spot any differences but I understand the format I originally posted would upset some members of the Church. No one is saying that church leaders didn't say it. But there is a big difference between an actual proclamation presented to the church (as you claimed it to be), and an extract of a private letter sent to an individual (which is what it is). 5
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 9 minutes ago, Teancum said: Enjoy the Christmas season! Same to you! 1
JustAnAustralian Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, kimpearson said: I guess some believe a statement from the first presidency is clearly just their opinion where as a proclamation is definitely doctrine. Not every statement that the first presidency makes, or letter that they write, is an official proclamation. Church leaders of all levels receive regular letters from the first presidency, but that doesn't mean that the letter telling bishops to only have sacrament meeting on Dec26th is an official proclamation. 2
kimpearson Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: It started IIRC as a letter addressed to a particular church member signed by the first presidency in 1949. It was then circulated by the church in some limited role. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements see also here where a bold member corrected the lord’s anointed and generated the statement: http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/lowry-nelson-exchange/ Give it a few more years and the argument will be that it didn't even happen. I had numerous family members alive as faithful members of the Church in 1949. All who I asked about it were very aware of it and in my childhood (1960's) it was often used by teachers along with statements by Joseph Fielding Smith and the first presidency in 1969 (https://archive.org/details/improvementera2706unse/page/564/mode/2up?view=theater and http://archive.org/details/improvementera7302unse/page/n71/mode/2up?view=theater). Interestingly, no one currently can find a copy of the original document. BYU had a copy at one time that was transferred to the Church Archives. The Church Archives has stated it is not aware of such a document in its possession. It's existence is unquestioned as it is referred to in numerous contemporary documents (here is just one, see page 72, https://archive.org/details/MormonismAndTheNegro/page/n73/mode/2up?view=theater). 1
JustAnAustralian Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 7 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Interestingly, no one currently can find a copy of the original document. Presumably because based on the link posted earlier in the thread https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/aug-2020-church-historian-communication-on-1949-first-presidency-statement/ it wasn't a single document, it was used as a boiler plate answer to letters.
kimpearson Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 21 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said: No one is saying that church leaders didn't say it. But there is a big difference between an actual proclamation presented to the church (as you claimed it to be), and an extract of a private letter sent to an individual (which is what it is). It wasn't an extract from a private letter. I believe the letter you are referring two was written in 1947 and I am attaching a link to it. https://archive.org/details/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/page/n5/mode/2up
CV75 Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 39 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Sorry that my source offended you. How about this one from FAIR? I can't spot any differences but I understand the format I originally posted would upset some members of the Church. First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith) August 17, 1949 The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. The First Presidency [1] The source did not offend me -- it is expected. The sample from FAIR represents the statement for what it was, and I suspect includes it with the other statements on the subject, OD-2, historical context and more recent essays as time rolled on. So there's your difference. Stuck in the past, anyone? As for the choice of format, as far as I am concerned, it only insulted you. 4
Calm Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: As for the choice of format, as far as I am concerned I laugh every time I see it. It is a very clever presentation.
CV75 Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 5 minutes ago, kimpearson said: It wasn't an extract from a private letter. I believe the letter you are referring two was written in 1947 and I am attaching a link to it. https://archive.org/details/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/page/n5/mode/2up So the various keys of the kingdom have been restored; you just don't like they way the keys of presidency and administration are exercised (now or on various occasions in the past), as opposed to the far weightier benefits you've received through blessings, baptism, confirmation, latter-day canon, ordination, callings, endowment, sealing, etc. You practice common consent, keep your covenants, sustain your fellow saints in their callings and feel the Spirit even though you believe others are wrong about the family proclamation and they believe you are wrong about it. Is that really the best you can do with the weightier benefits?
BRMC Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: So the various keys of the kingdom have been restored; you just don't like they way the keys of presidency and administration are exercised (now or on various occasions in the past), as opposed to the far weightier benefits you've received through blessings, baptism, confirmation, latter-day canon, ordination, callings, endowment, sealing, etc. You practice common consent, keep your covenants, sustain your fellow saints in their callings and feel the Spirit even though you believe others are wrong about the family proclamation and they believe you are wrong about it. Is that really the best you can do with the weightier benefits? What does "practice common consent" mean?
CV75 Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 1 hour ago, kimpearson said: Give it a few more years and the argument will be that it didn't even happen. I had numerous family members alive as faithful members of the Church in 1949. All who I asked about it were very aware of it and in my childhood (1960's) it was often used by teachers along with statements by Joseph Fielding Smith and the first presidency in 1969 (https://archive.org/details/improvementera2706unse/page/564/mode/2up?view=theater and http://archive.org/details/improvementera7302unse/page/n71/mode/2up?view=theater). Interestingly, no one currently can find a copy of the original document. BYU had a copy at one time that was transferred to the Church Archives. The Church Archives has stated it is not aware of such a document in its possession. It's existence is unquestioned as it is referred to in numerous contemporary documents (here is just one, see page 72, https://archive.org/details/MormonismAndTheNegro/page/n73/mode/2up?view=theater). If you look at the 6 proclamations that have been made so far, which ones will disappear from the record, and perhaps more significantly, which ones contain doctrinal points and principles that have changed? 1
CV75 Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 17 minutes ago, BRMC said: What does "practice common consent" mean? To give your consent to being led by those leaders proposed in unit meetings and the various conferences of the Church, and your consent for other proposals made in these settings such as new canon in General Conference, initiatives at the stake and ward levels, etc. Also proposals made in any council you might be serving on. Whenever you are asked to uplift your hand in favor of an action proposed by the presiding officers, that is your opportunity to practice it. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/common-consent?lang=eng 2
JustAnAustralian Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 1 hour ago, kimpearson said: It wasn't an extract from a private letter. From the link Quote We can confirm that the following text was used by the First Presidency in responses to inquiries about the priesthood restriction for several years beginning in 1949. The text was never issued publicly but, rather, was used as standard language in private correspondence. Then it leads into the text of the mocked up document you posted. 1 hour ago, kimpearson said: I believe the letter you are referring two was written in 1947 and I am attaching a link to it. https://archive.org/details/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/page/n5/mode/2up Where is the full statement by the first presidency in Lowry Nelson's exchange? 1
sunstoned Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 14 hours ago, CV75 said: Are you suggesting you know how mind-body-spirit alignment are determined in the resurrection? Wow! No I don't and I don't claim to know. The issue for me is that others claim to know, but they really don't know either.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 23, 2021 Author Posted December 23, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, CA Steve said: Mormonism was founded by someone who questioned why. But that’s not the same thing as doubting. He had faith, in fact (see James 1, from which he drew direction), and faith is the opposite of doubt. Edited December 23, 2021 by Scott Lloyd
CV75 Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 11 hours ago, sunstoned said: No I don't and I don't claim to know. The issue for me is that others claim to know, but they really don't know either. Why is that the issue? Which "others" are the most problematic?
CV75 Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 18 hours ago, CA Steve said: Mormonism was founded by someone who questioned why. Joseph Smith actually asked about his spiritual standing and which church to join -- where do you see a "why" question? The reply he received applies to everyone everywhere, and includes the "whys" without Joseph asking. "Why questions" entail the supplicant accepting what they know as a matter of fact -- so they have ask with a high degree of good faith and confidence. The Lord told Joseph the "why" after He told him about his standing and what to do, and Joseph accepted all of it. This is why matters concerning Church doctrine, which members uphold by common consent, need to be addressed with a high degree of good faith and confidence that unity of the faith in personal feeling and in gathering with others is observed. 2
Tacenda Posted December 23, 2021 Posted December 23, 2021 16 hours ago, kimpearson said: Give it a few more years and the argument will be that it didn't even happen. I had numerous family members alive as faithful members of the Church in 1949. All who I asked about it were very aware of it and in my childhood (1960's) it was often used by teachers along with statements by Joseph Fielding Smith and the first presidency in 1969 (https://archive.org/details/improvementera2706unse/page/564/mode/2up?view=theater and http://archive.org/details/improvementera7302unse/page/n71/mode/2up?view=theater). Interestingly, no one currently can find a copy of the original document. BYU had a copy at one time that was transferred to the Church Archives. The Church Archives has stated it is not aware of such a document in its possession. It's existence is unquestioned as it is referred to in numerous contemporary documents (here is just one, see page 72, https://archive.org/details/MormonismAndTheNegro/page/n73/mode/2up?view=theater). I inherited that book along with several other old church books.
JLHPROF Posted December 30, 2021 Posted December 30, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, ttribe said: I'll just leave this here - Which is why administrative decision is what passes as divine communication in the corporate Church. God sends a memo through correlated channels. Edited December 30, 2021 by JLHPROF 1
ttribe Posted December 30, 2021 Posted December 30, 2021 43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Which is why administrative decision is what passes as divine communication in the corporate Church. God sends a memo through correlated channels. Careful. Talk like that will get you branded an apostate. 1
Recommended Posts