Suzie

It is not available online AND I can guarantee you that what Marvin said about the ban being allowed by God but not imposed by Him, it's included in that article Darius wrote, the same article he received approval from the Brethren. First-hand information, no rumor. JAG, are you implying the Church makes decisions based on social pressure? So they rather people teach that the ban was not from God because they're concerned certain groups will get angry and make noise? I really don't understand you dislike for them, I know you didn't say it out loud but it is usually sort of implied in your posts, it bugs me. Margaret is a very caring and humble woman, she is also very intelligent and compassionate. Darius is a good man loved by many and works very hard (few people know how much) despite his health. This issue is VERY important to him, he is not teaching "edgy stuff", he is teaching what he has been authorized to teach by the Brethren, you can choose to believe it or not.

I know you're not very fond of Marvin's statements but to be fair, he is just repeating what Darius has been authorized to teach by the Church (Elder Samuelson was the one to give the approval), and in the paper Darius submitted he is allowed to teach that the ban was allowed by God but not imposed by Him. Of course, he must make a disclaimer in order to teach his personal thoughts however, would the Church allow such teaching to take place if it wasn't true? And if some of you think they can allow such thing..what would be the purpose for the Church to authorize false teachings to take place in the Church? The Genesis group is overseen by a General Authority, it is a dependent Branch of the Church and the Genesis group Presidency directly reports to the Brethren. I wrote extensively about Blacks and the Priesthood in some threads here providing historical elements which I personally think were the reasons for the ban so I don't want to sound like an old record but I just wanted to say that about Marvin and Darius.

Now, I understand exactly where you're coming from. Not sure if my position will be of any surprise but I didn't agree with the move of the Church making those negotiations. I deeply respect the view of the Jewish organizations but I am not sure if I liked how it was handled. Having said that, I still don't see the connection between this prohibition to Jews and the Priesthood ban. Blacks who were denied the privilege of holding the Priesthood were not only alive but they were also members of the Church and were denied ONLY based on their race. In the case of Jane, she requested the permission to be sealed several times (and she was refused every single time) and even though yes, we did the work for her after 1978, we all know she was a faithful member of the Church until the day she died. Judaism is not a race because Jews do not share one common ancestry, therefore we cannot even start comparing this "ban" (sort of speak) with the one prior to 1978. I see Judaism as a religious identity therefore, how can then be connected or even compared?

Sorry but I'm sick so I'm sort of slow tonight. Are you saying names of Jewish ancestors cannot be submitted? Because if that's what you're saying, that's not so (or at least that's not what I know is happening) But if you need the approval of a living relative of someone who died within the last 95 years, if they don't give such approval.. aren't they also restricted? Also, how come you make a connection between this and the Priesthood ban? Don't you think is a bit of a stretch?

Wow, we have celebrities among us

I admit, I'm confused. Why is it that we are focusing on the Jews that died during the Holocaust? I don't get it, the policy is clear and for everyone (not just Jews): We shouldn't submit names of those who are NOT related to us (Jew or not), it's more the Church says that the names of those who died and were born in the past 95 years should not be submitted for baptism without permission from their living relatives. (again Jew or not) so why we're talking about Jews particularly if the policy applies to EVERYONE regardless of race or ethnicity?

Hmmmm...I don't think you will find a clear apology or recognition of a mistake but perhaps you might find a "sort of" apology in the form of damage control or a clear renunciation of previous teachings by Church leaders in some of the following: 1. Priesthood Ban 2. Baptism for the dead (Holocaust victims) 3. Sexual abuse 4. Mountain Meadows 5. Gay issues

I can believe in a purple dinosaur but you see the kids alwayssss soooo nice, polite and caring, never complaining about anything or demanding or throwing a tantrum? No...I'm not stupid!

Awwwwwwwww I don't know but that sounded sweet.

NOW we're talking.

Augustmoon, this is something that you and your husband should discuss about and decide what is best for you guys. Of course, you can consult with the Lord if you both need to do so as well. Just like nobody should tell you what you should or shouldn't do during intimacy, you and your husband are the only ones who should decide about the lingerie. All the best. :)

My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these young men. What a sad story. LDS Living - Four LDS youth killed in El Salvador

Thanks, same here. :)

Reprimanded right, not dismissed. Correct, it is and I was referring specifically about this forum discussion NOT about how other cases were handled.

Eowyn, let me see if I can attempt to explain my position. lol If Mr. Brownstein encouraged the Boy Scouts to wear the uniform AFTER receiving the instruction that they cannot, he should be disciplined of course. And even THEN, I do not think he should be dismissed because I do not consider the action to be of such a serious nature that he should lose his position entirely. And yes, he made his point but still didn't break any rules and I don't agree he should be dismissed if he didn't neither he is responsible for those PARENTS who chose to march with their kids in full uniform.

Were the leaders released from their positions?

He clearly stated that others may choose differently. How can he stop them from doing so? People make their own choices. He complied, he didn't break any rules, how can he be dismissed if he didn't break any? But, we are repeating ourselves, aren't we? :)

Do you still think he should be removed of his position?

Bytor, to be honest I never went to one. It seems like there are different ones however, going back to the topic a little bit... if a parent decided that they want to march with their children, why exactly is Mr. Brownstein now going to be removed for a choice a PARENT himself/herself made? Or did some of you after reading the articles accurately changed their minds with regards to his dismissal?

I never went to one, so I can't say but it doesn't seem like it. However, the point I was trying to make is that the issue here is about GAYS (once again and how a lot of folks feel about the whole issue) it isn't about the guy being punished for "breaking" or no breaking the uniform "rule".

Why something inside me tells me that IF this was any OTHER parade and this guy would have done the exact same thing, nobody would be asking for the guy to be removed? But it's the GAY parade, that's the issue.

I understand your point of view but we cannot and should not remove a person from a position if they didn't break any rules. That's the logic.

Just like during election time, we are reminded the Church doesn't support any political group and members shouldn't use Church to do so but quite a few forget and from the stand they clearly encourage others to support a specific candidate. And yes, they know but the reminder is always there.

Eowyn, I mean no disrespect but now that you know he made the statement about the uniform BEFORE he received the instruction and your false allegation of "he blatantly defied the instruction given him by the BSA" no longer stands, why do you insist in wanting the guy to be disciplined for a choice others made? Specially the ones parents themselves made? It's illogical.

Here: