Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting
Log in changes to forums

Timpman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    327

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Timpman

  1. Timpman
    Just_A_Guy, sorting people into houses is not the same as dividing by race. Regarding Lamanites and Nephites, anyone could leave one group and join the other at any time so that situation was not race-based. In applying Elder McConkie’s quote to this conversation, “a living, modern prophet” refers to Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyring, Dieter F. Uchtford, and all the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I say that because they approve of the Race and the Priesthood article. I will address your other remarks later.
  2. Timpman
    My initial comment here was: I presented these statements as examples of racist theories: Here are some definitions of racism: I don't know what to say to anyone who believes the statements I presented are not racist except this: I respectfully but strongly assert that such a belief has no merit. So, why are any of you defending the disavowed theories or holding on to any possibility that they may have been, or still are, true? Does anyone really think it may have been true that black people were not not valiant in the pre-existence? If so, did that somehow change in 1978? I am saying "It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them." If Elder McConkie or anyone else referred to the "children of Cain" in or after 1978, then forget that, too. If anyone insists on perpetuating the "children of Cain" theory, or any other of the disavowed theories, then "all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet."
  3. Timpman
    We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past 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. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles. https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/all-are-alike-unto-god_eng.pdf
  4. Timpman
    Vort, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that "Believing theories, even disavowed theories, [makes] one racist." However, I am saying "the theories or suppositions themselves" are racist. I'll own that. Please note that the following is a single paragraph: It is not a stretch at all to say the second sentence applies to the first, in my opinion. I am troubled when anyone defends the disavowed theories in any way, and to any degree. The brethren certainly don't. The Folk Prophet, this Book of Mormon discussion is too big to have here. I presented a theory and said it's not my solid opinion. Let's just let it go.
  5. Timpman
    I have not formed a solid opinion on it. I am leaning toward believing that Nephi just recorded what he saw and was mistaken when he wrote "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" (2 Nephi 5:21), and the prophets after Nephi followed suit. I think it's more plausible that the Lamanites mixed with other people and their offspring had darker skin, and it was not something actively caused by God. Among other verses, I have carefully considered the following: 1 Nephi 2:21-24 1 Nephi 12:19-23 1 Nephi 13:14-15 2 Nephi 1:17-20 Alma 3:14-20 2 Nephi 5:20-25 2 Nephi 30:3-6 Jacob 3:3-9 Alma 9:13-14 Alma 17:14-15 3 Nephi 2:14-16 4 Nephi 1:10 Mormon 5:15 There is not one instance of God saying he caused their skin to be darkened. It’s possible that it was a false assumption. I could be wrong. Like I said, I don’t have a solid opinion.
  6. Timpman
    Such statements have been disavowed and condemned. I do not believe the brethren are disavowing and condemning the truth. I don't care to entertain the hypothetical question. Vort, that's not what I meant and I didn't say you are bad. If don't see those statements as racist, then I don't see how we can have a productive conversation. I can't convince you. I don't want to fight.
  7. Timpman
    I am absolutely saying that past prophets were mistaken regarding race issues. I am not, however, saying they were hateful, stupid, or any of those other things. I’m not judging their motives or standing in the afterlife. Brother Brigham and others after him were wrong. I’m just facing that. Any and all past racism has been condemned and I’m on board with the brethren of today.
  8. Timpman
    "You are black because you were not valiant in the pre-existence. You must have been a fence-sitter." "Your black skin is a sign that you are cursed by God." "Being black means you are a descendant of Cain, the first murderer, the son of perdition." If you don't see how statements like those are racist, I cannot have a conversation about this with you. Please note that I didn't call anyone a racist. I said "some members of the Church may be holding on to racist teachings of the past."
  9. Timpman
    It is disheartening to see that some members of the Church may be holding on to racist teachings of the past. Consider again the essay that was approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." [Emphasis added] The disavowed theories were absolutely, categorically racist by any modern definition. I wish members would stop clinging to teachings of dead prophets and follow what is taught today. We do not need a direct revelation from God repudiating past teachings when it has already been made clear.
  10. Timpman
    I believe God has all power that is possible for Him to possess. In that sense, He is all powerful.
  11. Timpman
    Wormwood, I don't think it's that simple. It was also stated that the ban was not doctrine, but was only a policy. A university can be named after Brigham Young regardless of his flaws. He said some things that were blatantly racist. I don't condemn him for it. It's just the way things were. I really don't know what the "doctrine of separation" is, but I know the Book of Mormon says black and white people are alike unto God. People will be judged according to their heart, thoughts, words, and works. I don't see how judgement day relates to this discussion about race and the priesthood.
  12. Timpman
    I taught some black people during my mission and the priesthood ban was a concern. My sister married a black guy. However, I was not strongly affected until the church stated, "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church..." I had understood we didn't really know why the restriction existed, but I assumed we knew how and when it began. I then questioned whether it is known if it should have been instituted at all. I was painfully disillusioned. I was going to provide a long explanation, but I've lost steam. I’ll just say I’m sorry if I have upset anyone here. I want to support faith, even though what I have written probably doesn't appear faith-promoting. My advice to all is to follow the prophets, but build a foundation on Jesus Christ independent of prophets or anyone else. Such a foundation will be not shaken when former theories and policies are disavowed, the definition of which is commonly understood to include rejected as false. See for yourself. Here are definitions and synonyms from five sources: Four out of the five include words denoting that to disavow something is to reject it as false. I don’t think the brethren would have used that word if they didn't mean to reject the theories in question. I understand why some resist that meaning, though. The implications can be frightening. In my opinion, the sooner one accepts the full meaning and comes to terms with the implications, the better. It'll be okay. The church is still true and Jesus is the Christ.
  13. Timpman
    With respect, I strongly disagree with this. To disavow something is to “deny any responsibility or support for” it. It appears the most commonly referenced synonym for the word is “repudiate,” which means “to refuse to accept or support” or “to reject the validity or authority of.” To me, it’s quite clear the church is saying it does not support the theories - it rejects them. They are saying those theories have no validity or authority.
  14. Timpman
    Vort, I was getting very discouraged by the tone of this discussion, but I feel better now. Thank you for this. You make good points here. I agree that if God instituted the ban, then 1) the ban was not racist, 2) or racism is not inherently bad, 3) or what people generally view as racist may not be so. Also, you were right when you said I don’t know the mind of God, generally. It could be that God did institute the ban and there were good reasons for it. However, I just believe the ban was not of God. I will present my reasons in a more organized way later.
  15. Timpman
    Just_A_Guy, I intend to address more of what you wrote, but I will respond just to this now: Ah-HAH! The private letter to his son that admits Kimball thought the policy was wrong all along . . . or did it? Just a couple of days later Kimball picked up his pen again and wrote the following to that same son: The conferring of priesthood, and declining to give the priesthood is not a matter of my choice nor of President McKay’s. It is the Lord’s program.... I can see how, in the absence of context, that quote would throw you. But when we look at Kimball's life and teachings--and the conversation that the quote comes from--in totality rather than just engaging in quote-mining, it becomes clear: Kimball would have been just about the last person in the Church to suggest that the GAs had erred in instituting the priesthood ban. I do understand that context is important and I don’t mean to misrepresent anything. Here is more on this: I see now that he referred to a “possible error” that caused the “deprivation.” Even if the “deprivation” is the ban, he did not say it could have been an error. He was referring only to what may have "brought about the deprivation." I stand corrected and I am sorry.
  16. Timpman
    If I have stated that the ban was categorically not of God, then I apologize. My intention is only to share my beliefs. I don't mean to state them as facts. I am sorry you label my deduction as illogical. It has been shown that the teachings used to support the ban have been disavowed. Teachings regarding other issues have been contradicted. The church no longer says anything to imply the ban was of God. I don't see how the phrase "After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban" alone implies that it was. If someone wants to focus more on a snippet from Gregory Prince's book, then that is their right. I will not be surprised at all if the ban is someday explicitly denounced by the church. Look at the direction this issue has been going during the last 30 years. More and more, the church has been distancing itself from the priesthood ban. It doesn't seem illogical to me that it will continue in the same direction.
  17. Timpman
    This is a really interesting phenomenon in liberal Mormonism--the idea that any teaching that is not officially re-stated every decade or so, magically becomes no longer "true". Some teachings are true regardless of how frequency they are stated, while others have been disavowed. If a teaching has been disavowed, doesn’t that mean it is no longer true, or never was? Anyway, I didn't say whether President Hinckley's comment was true or not - I said it's not official. It's "a single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion [that] often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church" (source). Consider these quotes: Any assertion that the ban came from God was supported by those teachings. Now consider these quotes: It was repeatedly taught that black people are the seed of Cain and were cursed with black skin. They were called an "inferior race." The 1949 First Presidency letter quoted Brigham Young regarding those "cursed with a skin of blackness." President McKay then said there had never been a doctrine "that the negroes are under a divine curse." It was also taught that they were not valiant in the pre-existence. So, here’s a summary: THEN: Black people are the seed of Cain and are cursed with blackness NOW: That theory is disavowed THEN: Black people were not valiant in the pre-existence NOW: That theory is disavowed THEN: Black people are of an inferior race NOW: That theory is disavowed Things that were true then are not true now. Rather, they were never true or the current statement is wrong. Again, any assertion that the ban came from God was supported by theories that have been disavowed. Such an assertion is not necessarily true now. Even Brother Kimball admitted the "deprivation" was a "possible error."
  18. Timpman
    No, I don't think we're safe in stating that at all. You have random statements from Young himself. You have the First Presidency's 1949 statement, re-stated earlier in this thread. You have Gordon Hinckley being asked point blank by ABC News in 1997 whether the ban was wrong, and his direct response was "No I don't think it was wrong." In one corner we have multiple, multiple Church leaders and official statements saying that the policy was divinely instituted. In the other corner we have . . . "the origins are not entirely clear and the rationales offered thus far are non-authoritative". It's not even a contest, IMHO. President Hinckley’s interview does not constitute anything official whatsoever, and all he said is "I don't think it was wrong." It has been decades since a real claim has been made that the ban was instituted by God. We do, however, have a church statement issued 02/29/2012 that says: Why cling to old statements that were not meant for this time? Those statements were essentially voided.
  19. Timpman
    No hard feelings. Before I found those pages of that book, I hadn't seen any solid source or context for those quotes.
  20. Timpman
    And I just noticed a Senior Moderator has claimed my argument is "impugning McKay's integrity." Please, please try to understand stuff like that can drive people away from the church. I have more information now: So I was wrong about this. More later.
  21. Timpman
    Vort, about a year and a half ago, I agreed with most of your posts here. I remember cheering you on in a thread. I have been going through a faith crisis and I am quite different now. I see you as a defender of the faith, and I applaud that. I hope you are not offended by what I have to say about that. Sometimes your methods are less effective and may drive some people away from the church. I do not believe you would intentionaly do that. When you call someone's statement "nonsense" or "ridiculous," it does not win their affection and faith. Your statements regarding what "a faithful Latter-day Saint" should or should not think, say, or do are especially abrasive. For example, you wrote, "to a faithful Latter-day Saint, of course that suggests that the Lord wanted 'the ban' in place at that time, that he did not want it removed yet." So if another member of church doesn't see it that way, then he or she isn't "a faithful Latter-day Saint"? You would do well to ponder your use of black-and-white and if/then statements. I have seen several instances where you write something like "If you say this, then that must also apply." For example: I acknowledge that you also wrote, "Or is there a third possibility I'm missing?" but there is still an issue. The vibes I get from you are that a real, faithful Latter-day Saint wouldn't have any real doubts and that any doubters need to reprimanded. I couldn't be totally wrong, but I feel that some things you have written would not support many people in their doubts and trials. Rather, the doubts and trials would be exacerbated. Yes, I can see that I am being abrasive toward you. Please know that I am being sincere and I want there to be a more welcoming spirit on this forum. Maybe we all follow the spirit of these words:
  22. Timpman
    Okay, race is involved, but this is not the same. I won't spend more time on this point. No offense, but I just didn't get much out of it. You're really straining with that one. Teaching is an action. Leaders taught that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence and are the seed of Cain. Those theories were specifically disavowed. Do you think those things were taught according to the will of the Lord? The promulgation of those theories led people astray, if only by people accepting them. I have not made that assumption. I do think it's a big deal and I have been very saddened by it. It's a good thing temple ordinances can still be performed for all of those people and it's not too late to fulfill the commission :)
  23. Timpman
    It has not been established that "God DID command the Prophet NOT to lift the ban." The only information I have found indicates that: -A secretary said President McKay reported receiving an answer “not yet” -An architect in the church office building said President McKay reported receiving an answer “not to bring the subject up again” So it's merely hearsay.
  24. Timpman
    Why is this "simple and obvious" to you? Did God reveal it to you? Or is this simply your societal biases coming through? I think discriminating against a person based on race alone is a widely accepted definition of racism. I cannot answers those questions authoritatively. I don't know why different races exist or how pre-mortal decisions affect each person. I am one who also "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life..." I don't see why I would have to answer those questions to justify my statement. A restriction based on race alone is a form of racism. It really is quite simple. Yes, I do believe racism is a sin, and "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." I do not believe God instituted the ban. Do you think I have not sought the mind of God? If so, why? When you state your opinions, are you speaking the mind of God? The recent statement issued by the church disavows certain past theories and condemns all racism in any form. Does acknowledging what has been said and done by prophets constitute evil speaking of the Lord's anointed?
  25. Timpman
    When you make the claim that masses of people were denied their rightful divine blessings because of the ignorance and and hard-heartedness of those who were in charge of administering God's kingdom -- is this not the very definition of wickedness? Yes, wickedness was being committed. I have committed wicked deeds. Noah, Moses, and other prophets committed acts of wickedness. This does not mean we label them as "wicked men." It is not for us to make that judgement.