RMGuy

Perhaps a first presidency statement could be considered as "official"? Honest question, if we are going to try to excuse this official statement from 1949 as "speculation and opinion, not doctrine" then are we to regard all 1st presidency statements as speculation and opinion? The church's latest release includes the following statement: "Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine." So in that instance was the first presidency statement below a personal statement that does not represent doctrine? 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." Signed: The First Presidency, George Albert Smith, N Eldon Tanner, David O McKay -RM

We do agree sometimes! -RM

I know for sure that questions regarding WoW were not added until either the 40's or 50's...the question on associating with apostates was a bit before that. Somewhere I have a document that shows when those were added, but the short answer to your question is that yes the questions that are asked with relation to the TR interview have changed over time. -RM

Well that is interesting since it was included as part of the 14 fundamentals that are so highly touted. -RM

I agree with you Skippy. What things do you think we were told at the last general conference that weren't the will of the Lord? How about the one before that? I think the hard part is we have things like the 14 fundamentals of following a prophet and members are not encouraged to question the council of a prophet. In our stake a YW can't even go to girls camp if she has more than 1 pair of earrings. Even if she doesn't believe it is the will of the Lord. Then, we have something like this that is blatantly off base, and we use the schtick that prophets aren't perfect. We can't have a cake and eat it too. Either they, and by extension the church, is held accountable for what they taught OR they are fallible and prone to questioning...including the current group. -RM

Yes indeed there is Pam. Likely in direct response to a member of the church who has said the same types of things at a church sponsored university for 20+ years without being told he is in error. He even had the words of past prophets and apostles to back him up. Then when it comes out in the media that this is what some members believe, in fact, that this is what some members were TAUGHT to believe, it doesn't look so good and the church enters damage control mode. In some ways I feel sorry for him. -RM

Thanks. I'm still working on the low bars....the complex gymnastics still throw me. -RM

How do you reconcile that with "The prophet will never lead the church astray"? -RM

Touche -RM

Short answer, yes we run both. Slightly longer answer, we don't do either one very well. -RM

more of a tannish brown....it really isn't a pretty color! -RM

We aren't as far apart as you might think. Completely agree with you on the sex outside marriage thing. Completely agree with you on if I find out about it we are going to have a serious discussion. Completely agree that depending on what it is they could lose privileges. I would probably react a bit different than "are you NUTS" but that is probably more a function of personality than it is belief...lol! I would help them find BC if they came to me openly and honestly and they had thought it through...even though I disagree with their choice. Kinda like if my daughter decided to go get a piercing I disagreed with. I would rather her come to me and take her somewhere to make sure it was done correctly and safely than have her try it on her own in her room with an ice cube and a needle. LOL! Again Anatess, you're right we might end up on different sides of the fence from time to time, but I do appreciate the way in which you disagree. It challenges me to consider my opinions and helps me to see the other side. -RM

During our first year of marriage I could have given anyone 22 reasons not to...lol! One of the benefits of thinking eternally is that it held us together until things got better. Then they got awesome, then not so good, then better than ever :-) -RM

Confirmation bias is an interesting topic. Individuals with testimonies of the book see evidence. Detractors see no evidence. The only difference is that which the book itself says, "and by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things." -RM

See what happens when you spend some time in one of those uniforms....you pick up all kinds of things ;-) -RM

What if they don't have to, but they want to? -RM

Perhaps the best part of agency is that we can disagree, and sometimes learn from each other. I can respect where you are coming from Anatess. I am trying to understand, and want to see if I am getting what you are saying? So for you, if your daughter or son decided to have sex, you expect them to be the responsible part to find BC for themselves. If they did this and you discovered it, how would you react? If they came to you to ask for help in accomplishing this, how would you react? Thank you for a civil discussion on a difficult and emotionally charged subject. -RM

Backroads, I agree wholeheartedly that they have some responsibility. What I would be concerned about is that if the parent is adamantly opposed under all circumstances to BC, then how open will they be percieved by their children to discuss this with them? Honest question. -RM

As an aside, most people refer to it as 6AM. For the Army this is 0600, for the Navy it is 4 bells in the morning watch, for the AirForce it is also 0600 since they started as the Army Air Corps. For the Marines among us, that is when Mickey's big hand points straight up and his little hand points straight down. -RM

LOL, to me near beer is to "drinking" like kissing is to sex. That being said...beer is ucky. It looks like pee, smells like old shoes, and because of the first two I've never been able to force myself to try it. -RM

So if you have children and they decide to have sex (with or without your knowledge) then you have preferred to have the consequence of grand children/std's as opposed to being the one to sign them up for birth control. Fair enough. -RM

There seems to be a lot of wisdome in that Madriglace. Thank you. -RM

At our house we teach abstinence as the policy. However, we also encourage open and honest dialoge. If our daughter (and I have one in that age range) came to us and told us she and her bf had decided to have sex...(she has told us lots of stuff, so I believe she would bring this to us), then we would talk through why they made that decision, why we think it is not a good decision etc. But if she was committed to her course of action, then we would indeed make sure that she had access to birth control. -RM

LOL! That is how I answer Temple recommend question #7 everytime. With a resounding yes. I've only had one leader probe deeper and I shared that this is exactly what Christ did too. -RM

Yep! I'm recommending your solution. Then if someone comes to camp with her eyebrow pierced but she says she is good to go, then the leaders can just ignore it. -RM