TheJoker
-
Posts
63 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TheJoker
-
-
I don't know why some people don't want the LDS members to be under the Christian banner.
Because they have very different ideas on what was before and what will be after this life.
-
Do you believe there is hard evidence supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the evidence was obvious, then lots and lots of people would be joining the Church. And why would anyone leave, in the face of such convincing evidence?
Do you think God designed it this way?
Well. If Jesus did truly exist. And so everything people believe. He showed some pretty convincing evidence.
But nowadays. Nono. It would never happen.
-
And many still have not.
Wouldn't you expect the one true church to be leading the way on equal rights?
Correct...saw it when I served my mission in TN and KY.
Okay.
This all appears to be supposition...have any facts?
Look it up.
They may not have issued some formal "apology", but Elder McConkie sure made it clear what he said - "Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said…that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." Almost sounds like - "we were wrong."
Almost sounds like they are dodging an apology. And saying that is just trying to dodge saying "We were wrong for many decades."
It was already labeled as such...
Seemed to help speed up the prophecy then.
nevertheless, if there was no revelation at the outset (which there wasn't), why does that preclude a revelation on the back-end?
There is evidence that Joseph Smith actually baptised and confirmed the Priesthood on two black people. The whole black people not being allowed to hold the Priesthood seems to have started with Brigham Young.
-
Why don't you think so?
Because besides the belief in Christ. There is a big difference between Christian beliefs and LDS beliefs.
If it's doctrine, where's the line between Christian and non-Christian. Just to give an example:
I think being a Christian is than just the belief in Christ. I think it has a lot to do with beliefs of what happened before and what happens after this life. But thats my own opinion.
.
OK, what if it's believing in the Trinity? Are Oneness Pentecostals not Christians? They agree with just about everything my church (Assemblies of God) teaches--EXCEPT the Trinity.
I don't think i know too much about that to give a reasonable answer.
Further, they do not deny the Father, Son or Holy Spirit, and they believe that Jesus is God. They simply argue that God is 1 in 3, rather than three in one.
In that case they do not believe Jesus Christ to be an actual person. Hense they don't believe in Christ being a seperate person.
He is one person, revealed in three manifestations. I don't agree. The teaching is heretical.
Perhaps.
But will they be damned for it? Will they go to hell. Are their tongues and interpretation demonic? Are the faith healings they experience demonic?
Who knows.
Personally, I've taken the easy-out, and leave the determining of who is and is not a Christian, to God.
Good.
I'll hash out doctrine 24-7, and tell folk I disagree. But, judging the soul...as Prez. Obama once said, "That's above my pay grade."
Imo it is beyond anyone's pay grade. But that's my own opinion.
I guess the question what makes a Christian is hard to come to a solid conclusion on. I for one though do not see why LDS members would want to make sure they are under the Christian banner.
-
If one gauge his/her life after the world then you are correct. I do not! Nor I consider anyone in this world a genius when truth in the end will correct fables. We do know, the world will fail and fall as John seen [book of Revelation].
'We' don't know anything. 'You' believe something.
If I could look at two examples of two children, I guess being age of 12 [the Savior] is not consider enough time for wisdom or perhaps,
Jesus was perfect. So that doesn't matter as his wisdom would already be pretty much better than any other in human existance. Joseph on the other hand is different. I guess it's what you believe his chuldhood consisted of.
age of 14 [Joseph Smith] is not enough to reach a level of wisdom that many in the church has not reached or may not reach in mortality?
Joseph on the other hand is different. I guess it's what you believe his chuldhood consisted of.
It is expected with anyone in the gospel, as you age, you are expected to at least gain wisdom in those experiences.
The same is true for life in general. But it's not always the case.
-
I do think the Church was not ready until 1978 to lift the ban.
Why not? Many other religions had already accepted black people as equal.
Part of it had to do with the struggles of surviving as a Church that was frequently under attack.No more than any other religious group.
Also, racism was big in the USA, especially in the South, and it would have harmed our efforts to get a foothold in many places (a sad truth, but true, nonetheless).That is the same now. Many people in the south still are racist.
Just as the restored gospel first required a few centuries of Reformers to prepare the way, I believe the Civil Rights movement and other events, including some in the Church (building of the Sao Paolo Brazil temple), were key in this.This is totally different from the restored gospel though. This is allowing black men to have the same authority and power as white men.
I know it wasn't just something the Church had to come to terms with.How do you know this? The church was pretty much the last major religion to allow black people the same rights in the church. If they hadn't have finally let it happen. It would have turned very bad for the LDS members.
It was a real revelation.I disagree
I've heard several of the apostles speak on this topic.So have I. None of them have ever made an apology on behalf of the church for allowing this to happen for 150ish years.
Eleven of the 12 apostles were present for the revelation.Doesn't make it any more credible that it was an actual revelation.
Elder Haight spoke on it frequently in General Conference, as it was the most sublime experience he'd ever had. Elder McConkie said it was an experience greater than the witness of the Son of God. Clearly, there was a major revelation that ended the ban.I disagree. I think the ban was lifted or the church would have been labled a racist group. If there was a church like that today. It would definatly be labled as such.
President Kimball had prayed about it frequently.Doesn't add to the credibility it was a revelation.
He knew that the Brazil temple was a huge event, bringing a temple into an area with many of African descent. The time was right. They needed an answer, and the Lord gave it to the First Presidency and Twelve.Again. I disagree.
-
Talk to your parents. Try and see it from there side. And then they will hopefully do the same with you.
But if you can. You need a healthy relationship with your parents.
-
I'm not bothered that their was a time when black people couldn't hold the priesthood. As we have learned from the mistakes of all the racism that was involved decades ago.
I just do not understand two thing:
1. The LDS church was the last major religion to give black members the same exact rewards and blessings of being a member than any other major religion.
2. Brigham Young's clear racism. Say what you want. But Brigham Young said some things about Black people which was totally out of line.
-
Interesting if it turns out to be true.
-
Excellent wisdom...
Not really. It's just one of those things that people 'assume' to be fact.
1. I assume that Scientists are not all over the age of 50.
2. Stephen Hawking is not the oldest man in the world. But the smartest.
And as for Wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience. But assuming that age = more wisdom is simply not true.
My Granded has had many experiences. But is a clear racist. That come from Wisdom?
-
Sorry..none of those quotes prove your point.
Stop Attacking me!
Funnily enough. They do. You just can't seem to see it.
-
Quit trying to make a point that isn't there.
The point is there. Maybe i didn't explain it too well. Doesn't mean it's not there.
It's 4:30am here
So give me a break. -
By the age of 8 they should have learned that these things are not appropriate
I just don't understand those that have a hard time with the age of 8.
you underestimate children at that age.
I'll leave this discussion now. My argument wasn't meant to be children not knowing at 8. But all members being baptized at an age where they all would be ready. Such as 12.
But in any case. I can't seem to express my opinion without attacking someone. Goodnight.
-
Just like any addiction. Mental or physical.
If the person really wants to stop doing it. They'll stop.
-
Hi some guy.
-
What I was disagreeing with is the fact that there are in fact some 8 year olds that are very much aware of the commitment to baptism. There are many that also have a great understanding and faith. That just because one person felt they didn't have the spiritual level at age 8 didn't mean that that applied to all 8 year olds.
I like how you have put the word 'many' into what you are saying now.
Before we were both speaking as though it is for all 8 year olds. Guess that was the problem
Now you are saying that there are 'SOME' eight year olds. That is not what you were saying earlier.
I am sorry. I telling the truth another attack?
-
Howdy,
To TheJoker, I would ask whether or not you may be wrong--is there an even remote possibility of a child who is cognizant and up to the task of making the baptismal covenant?
Yes of course. I probably let personal experience get the better of me. For that i apologize.
I suppose all children are different. Means that the main question is a yes/no depending on the person.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Same back to you.
-
JD made no mention of any particular post or thread.
Someone ticked me off in what they put in a post. I thought it might have to do with that.
You made your point earlier.
Read what i just put. Tell me where i put that before please.
Why do you feel the need to justify yourself by a continuance of an attack on me?
What attack. Seriously. Read the quotes of what you put about me. And then look at yourself. I am not the one doing any 'attacking'.
-
Joker the impression I got from your posts was that since you were not ready to be baptized at 8 years old no child could ever possibly be ready at that age. I have known many children who were just being baptized because mommy and daddy said it was the right thing to do but like pam and lattelady I've also known some that had an amazing faith and knew exactly why it was important to be baptized. Ultimately it should be up to the parents, if they feel their child is ready I’m going to trust their judgment.
I find that a fair opinion. And i respect that
Of course i disagree though. As i think that the parents shouldn't be the ones who make the decision. But hey! Thats my opinion.
Just because i disagree doesn't mean i don't think it is a good view.
That's why i am going to stop taking part of the actual discussion of this. I'll respond if i read my name in a post of course.
-
It's been your M.O. here since you arrived. Don't try to play so innocent.
Have i insulted anyone because of what they believe? No.
Have i said things based on my opinion? Yes.
If you are referring to what i put in the Christian section of the forums. Please read what the other guy put.
I have not broken any rules. Some people just seem to get upset when people don't agree with them. That's not my fault or problem.
Joker I think you underestimate children at that age.
My opinion ''must' be wrong
Perhaps you weren't ready to make the commitment to baptism
Must be 'me' again..
I agree with this..but only if both sides are willing to listen and acknowledge the beliefs of the other.
She has shown no evidence of this.
Joker has his opinion set and sees no other explanation or understanding
If this is not an insult what is? Look in the mirror.
I too, have my personal experiences of many more years than he has even lived
Assumes she must know better than me because she is older.
yet what I have to say doesn't appear to be of importance
I didn't agree with her. So i must think that her opinion is not important. Obviously.
But your right. I am the problem. Clearly.
-
And yet, here you are.
What's your point may i ask?
I am not degrading someone by disagreeing with them.
-
I don't understand your post. What are you referring to when you say that less than 1% is lucky?
The world's population
-
You're assuming I'm Obi.....
You're assuming i'm Skywalker? :)
-
Absolutely, my young Padawan....
But doesn't the padawan slay the master?
In all seriousness though. Age has nothing to do with any of it.
When did the ban on Blacks holding the Priesthood start
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Human element yes. But these are supposed to be prophets of god. Shouldn't they be leading the way to make the world a better and fairer place?
Google it. Check it has a reasonable source. Think about it from a reasonable level. Don't just assume it's nonsense or it will automatically have no value to you.
If i apologise to someone. I don't just say reasons why i did the thing which was bad.
The civil war was before DOM. Think about that. Not hard to know eventually black people would have the same freedom and rights as White people.
Does it not? It seems like JS had no problem with black people having the Priesthood. But BY did. So if a prophet does something...the next prophet can say it is wrong?
And weirdly enough. Every so often the prophet is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator.
Seer meaning:
1. a person who can supposedly see into the future; prophet
2. a person who professes supernatural powers
3. a person who sees
So yes, Mormon prophets if they are genuinally Seer's, should have been trying to speed up the equal rights of black people in the gospel and in the world. As they can 'see' that it is going to be a good thing which will happen and it should happen asap.
Revelator: # (n.) That which is revealed.
1. That which is revealed by God to man; esp., the Bible.
2. Specifically, the last book of the sacred canon, containing the prophecies of St. John; the Apocalypse.
3. The act of revealing divine truth.
4. The act of revealing, disclosing, or discovering to others what was before unknown to them.
Two revelations have been revealed in the church. The revelation of black people being able to hold the priesthood. And Polygamy not being practiced anymore.
Both of these 'Revelations' were reversing JS 'Revelations' and seemed to have been made when the church was being criticised or threatened because of them.