Suzie

Members
  • Posts

    3379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Suzie

  1. Actually, I was not referring to you specifically (although you seem to hold that view). I was talking generally. I know we don't know each other but just for reference, I have no problem whatsoever in calling out your name if is needed. You mean you would explain how it was surely the will of the Lord? (the placement of the ban?) If that's what you are saying, I would love to read your reasoning since I'm always open to new ideas and hypothesis.
  2. I am puzzled as why some people make both mutually inclusive.
  3. Once again, as I stated in many parts within this thread.... There seems to be a bunch of different factors, from purely the involvement of the Lord to social pressure and the involvement of the Lord and the Church inability to cope with the situation worldwide, etc. I stated my position before and you even quote it however, once again (as I said) I have not made my mind completely in both: the placement of the ban and the lifting. I may lean towards a cause/s however they are not absolute. I continue searching and seeking answers. I don't think this is a thread about Suzie's position (how boring!) so I don't wish to focus on my personal views entirely (I don't mind to share it but I don't want to make it "the" focus) however I wish to deal with historical evidence or lack thereof. Now that I have answered, I would like to move on and deal with the facts presented on this thread and see if we can come up with some answers. Thanks.
  4. Vahnin, I truly don't know how to explain myself anymore (and kind of tired to be repeating myself over and over and over again, such a waste of time for such interesting thread). It seems like the only one who seem to understand my position in this thread is Margin (as reflected in his last posts). Margin, maybe you can explain better? (again?) You seem to think that because I choose to add the possibility of external factors such as personal bigotry I am somehow in the wagon of those who believe Brigham Young and many others were not Prophets of God, I tend to agree somewhat with J. Reuben Clark who stated that there have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been moved upon by the Holy Ghost (inspired) whether you believe this or not, this is entirely something personal. However, just because I may believe such doesn't mean I lose perspective of things. Two plus two doesn't equal three but I don't know what else to tell you other than I think the possibility exists and the Lord allowing this the whole time. You think otherwise, and I respect that. Why continue going in circles? However,I am interested in discussing the historical facts presented (I know you said you can't explain them) but maybe someone else can and who knows we may be able to come up with some answers.
  5. Armand L. Mauss (LDS sociologist) gave a very interesting view of the Book of Abraham concerning this issue some years ago in a FAIR conference:
  6. Kind of ironic
  7. You mean the possibility that a whole group of people for more than 100 years were deprived from the Priesthood because one of the Prophets hold racist views and applied a ban? I have to explain why it sounds awful? Funky, please enough of dramatics (first the fiery indignation and now the dangerous territory?). I am fully aware that the views of Brigham Young and others were common within their era (I don't think anyone denies that). The point is: Do these views were carried out to the point of setting a priesthood ban to blacks? That's the issue here. It would be very foolish for me to state I have "the truth" when so many elements are missing and when I don't know all the facts. Again, based on myyears of study this issue and my opinion I am leaning towards one possibility as stated before. I am not sure why there are issues that I state my personal opinion and provide historical facts. If you think differently, then I respect it. Hmmm...I guess that's for me to decide.
  8. In my entirely personal view, we can try to determine that through being open to all possibilities within this issue, doing a depth research about it, ponder and then present it to the Lord.
  9. Fiery indignation? That's a little too dramatic. I believe all I am doing is presenting historical facts that so far, no one has been able to challenge. Does the possibility of bigotry sounds awful? Of course it does. Of course! We could be wrong, the world could be wrong, Brigham Young could have been wrong. Not sure of what your point is. I don't think I ever claim to hold the Truth, I am open to possibilities as discussed in this thread, just because I lean towards one (which in my opinion has the most solid base) doesn't mean I believe I hold "the truth". What makes you think otherwise? My last comment? Those are his words, I was illustrating the fact that just because a Prophet may have been called by God does not mean every word he speaks is what the Lord tells him to say.
  10. No. The monster was created 159 years ago.
  11. The possibility was always there, as expressed in my posts on this topic. I just lean strongly towards bigotry (just like Margaret and so many others in the bloggernacle). It would be very foolish in my opinion for me to consider just one reason knowing that all the facts have not been answered and there are so many "holes" (historically speaking). You are making a lot of erroneous assumptions here with regards to my views (not appreciated). I believe a person can be called of God and yet have their personal views, wrong and all (the quotes of past leaders with regards to this topic is overwhelming evidence) unless you think the Lord through his Prophet/s saw black people as a bunch of uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of intelligence and commanded him/them to say so?.
  12. I also wanted to state that maybe is this thread or this forum but there are lots of LDS members who support Beck.
  13. I thought you and Margin (and whoever else is reading) may like to check out this article by Lester Bush (not sure if anyone link to it earlier on this thread). I think is fantastic and describes historically the things we have been discussing as well as many of my thoughts: https://dialoguejournal.com/2010/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/
  14. Then it seems like you ended the discussion right there and wish not to venture to other possibilities for the ban? I don't blame you, in my years as a member studying the topic most people I encountered didn't want to pursue other possibilities, maybe is an unconscious fear because exploring other possibilities may open a can of worms very few people are willing to dig in. You know, I have thought a lot about this. I can give a very small chance about the possibility of the Lord lifting the ban (and I say this because I try to remain open minded to new ideas and information) however, I am giving an even less chance that the ban was imposed by the Lord. Right now, my studies and conclusions are leading to what we have been discussing as possible reasons.
  15. Just because he's LDS doesn't mean every Mormon now should support him, his style or his political views. There is a bigger picture.
  16. It seems like each person's spirit is saying something different depending on who you ask... I can give you all the credit you want however, I can tell you due to my past background that your position is quite common among TV viewers but also quite naive (not trying to be disrespectful). TV personalities are just that....personalities isn't necessary how they truly are. Again, NOT saying this is the case with Mr. Beck. Many, many years ago, I worked with a very respected TV reporter. On camera, he was the most charming guy you could think of, won the hearts of many people because of his TV personality and stories, a true gentleman but when the camera was off, he was obnoxious, aggressive, disrespectful, foul mouthed and a cocaine addict. Like him, I have seen LOTS. That little rectangle thing you have at home (TV) just shows you an illusion.
  17. Vanhin, are you suggesting the Lord chose Brigham Young and other leaders who were racist in their thinking for some sort of... purpose? The ban? Taking away the rights to the Priesthood to a certain group of people for 126 years? Or did you mean something completely different?
  18. I'm asking this in all due respect, is this sarcasm? Do you know him personally? If you do, then I will take your word for it (no problem at all) but if you don't then it appalls me to think that people look at anyone on TV (not just Glen Beck) and assume that his TV persona is how the person truly is. I'm not saying this is Glen's case however, I don't think we should be so naive to think that's how they are, come on.
  19. That's another thing that surprises me. Those who think that the Lord wouldn't have allowed an injustice (if the ban was racially motivated) for so long yet there are babies and kids being abused, tortured and killed as I type this, every single day without any divine intervention. My point? God does NOT intervene in all things. It is a fact.
  20. I can give the possibility of the Lord involvement on the ban, I am a bit surprised why others cannot give the possibility of racial motivations taking into consideration the information that has been provided and that so far no one was able to explain.
  21. Interesting. I thought the Church teaches that a Prophet doesn't have to say "Thus sayeth the Lord"? It's interesting because in discussions such as this, you get these kind of statements but when we are discussing something we feel comfortable with we say he doesn't have to say it (not trying to pick on you Funky eh, just saying what I observe).
  22. I think people in general like to create an answer for things they don't understand or is controversial, specially in religion hence things like racism as we discussed in this thread and heck even slavery can be justified in any way or form with or without the use of scriptures. Doesn't mean that it is The truth but the truth each one feels comfortable with.
  23. I thought the second quote I provided within my message answered that question by itself.
  24. I don't know about the second part however, in 1960 BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson kept a journal. It doesn't seem to be an issue that these Black boys couldn't hold the Priesthood ...but entirely about their race.
  25. Sorry, I am usually in a rush when I am online during the day. You said to Margin: I would like to know whether you refer to being racists with regards to the ban (theory of ban imposed due to racism) or simply racists ( their views on blacks, etc) because I think there is a lot of evidence of racist views from past Prophets, Apostles, etc so I was kind of confused at why we should have to make a case out of it since the quotes are so known and I don't know anyone who disputes that.