Free_Born_John

Hi Skippy, I'm familiar with the arguments you've just laid out, but I'm sorry, I just don't find them even remotely convincing. To start with, for Bruce R McConkie to simply say "wipe the past and do over" does not fly with me. He certainly was not referring to the idea of a curse, but was referring to statements that Black people would not receive the priesthood until the very last. To state that we have additional light means further explanation and clarification, what it does not mean is that what went before we in its essence wrong. Further light adds information that enhances understanding, this does not do that, it wipes out past views as false doctrine, and begs the question, why did the Lord allow such a wrong or misinterpretation to affect so many people for 140 years. IMO the church should be a light on a hill, a beacon unto the world. In the issue of race and priesthood we were amongst the last to reach the point of recognising the civil rights movement. We were once again heading to court or boycotts etc which would have been damaging. It seems to show a pattern of revelation reactive to crisis's not proactive and leading the world by example. I would hope our prophets would be at the forefront of the civil rights movement arguing for equal rights rather than being amongst the last and being near forced to obey the law. The scriptures make it clear that it refers to the skin and is a result of a curse caused by transgression. This is supported by the view that the lamanite skins could become lighter through righteousness. I'm really not a fan of trying to re-write church history or scripture because it is problematic today. I'm so pro equality its not even funny, but I'm also sufficiently able to read a wide variety of scripture and history to the point that no amount of referencing BR McConkie or changes to the headings of scriptures overcomes. How do we know the modern versions aren't leaders speaking as men to overcome the major PC issues the church faces in the world? It also sets a precident that we would then need to accept. Right now there are petitions for Gay marriage and for women to be ordained to the priesthood. In 50 years time will we discover that actually gay marriage is ok, as is ordaining women to the priesthood, it was just the prejudice of our leaders that prevented that from happening? We end up on really shaking ground when we say the Gospel is unchanging, same yesterday today and forever (and there are some much more tightly worded quotes than that given by Joseph Smith to bind un into these problems). A firm foundation states you get told the truth from the start. What is the point of getting bits of revelation that nobody understands and then goes completely astray on? What value do we get from prophets if the things they teach will turn out to be classed as racist false doctrine 100 years later? Prophets either speak the word of God and agree or we have to resolve why those challenges exist at all.

Church, whilst I see where you're trying to go with your argument, the church does use Doctrine and Policy as separate and distinct items. Further, you'd need to reconcile that with the idea that the Doctrines given by heavenly father are eternal and unchanging, doctrines are the principles upon which we live, policies are merely the principles upon which we organise in a temporal sense. The Commandments are Doctrines, they are statements of principle as well as rules and not just policies. You don't get excommunicated for breaching a policy, you do for breaking commandments and Doctrines.

I think the evidence for the scientific age of the earth vs the the dogmatic claims of it being 6000 year old are overwhelming. I do find it challenging when other members come up with these crazy schemes to keep the 6000 year timeline viable. Standing against that interpretation is a lot of evidence: 1. The Geological record - we have layers of rock that go back billions of years, in the millions of years layers you can find all kinds of lifeforms, including early plants and trees with ring markings in them for age. 2. Space and light - for light to be reaching the earth from other stars, bearing in mind that we know the speed at which light travels it indicates a much older universe by a massive margin. 3. Historical - we have written records that go back beyond 6000 years. There are summerian records far older than that. 4. Carbon Dating - despite poorly informed members arguing about the accuracy of Carbon dating it is pretty darn reliable, and indicates a much older planet. 5. Fossil records - we find not just dinosaurs, but masses of fossils all laid out in an evolutionary order, all set out consistently on every part of the planet. The consistency makes it very clear that the existed over an extensive time frame, and any comments about God using bits from other worlds blah blah blah would mean that he set this up purposely to trick us - which would imply God was the deceiver, which is not possible. 6. Ice Core Samples - Yep, we can take ice core samples that indicate pollution and weather patterns going back hundreds of thousands of years, far beyond that 6000 year mark. 7. DNA - the markers in DNA are reducible. People can be identified in terms of origin by those markers. Markers can be walked back to see how they fit together and have changed over time, the result is estimates of conversion into the African continent, but way way beyond 6000 years ago. Again, i'll make it clear. If this is some clever trick to fool us, then since the world was laid out with scientific laws by God, and constructed by the Saviour, then the idea that they did it to trick us is preposterous. Therefore, we are simply discovering more about God and about his plan. Infact, I like to think that science evidences just how amazing God is, far bigger that some creator that made a few species just 6000 years ago. Nope, this world indicates some phenomenal level of design and forethought to link all of the parts together which is far more in keeping with the idea of omniscience IMO.

I've noted that many of the threads are more about debate or complicated questions, so wanted to lighten the tone and ask if people had any really striking spiritual experiences that they could share. I'm not talking about simply feeling the spirit when you read the scriptures etc, because I expect this is common, but the more significant experiences that are just statistically impossible without divine intervention, i.e. resurrection, unquestioned and verifiable healings etc.

For me I'm more concerned about why doctrines change than the fact that they have. For example, the recent church essay on Polygamy on LDS.org seems apologetic about Polygamy, and never really explains that it absolutely is Mormon doctrine. I'm not ashamed of what we believe. It doesn't have to be popular or PC. If the world does not like it I don't care. If we believe in Polygamy then we believe in it as a doctrine and a principle. I wasn't sure when I read that essay if the church was playing too PC or just chickening out and trying to sound mainstream. But I absolutely agree with the main thrust of your question. Growing up, when the prophet spoke I believed that was doctrine. Now, years later having read more widely, I recognise that we face some really tough contradictions. As mentioned in the Race and Priesthood discussions, there are really significant quotes by LDS leaders that are official on the record statements about that issue that have now been disavowed by the church. This then begs the question, if a Prophet states something as Doctrine today, isn't there risk that tomorrow or in 50 years time it will be viewed as just his opinion. Now to be balanced here we need to be very careful IMO, as there is no name on those essays, so they could have been written by church apologists. Nor do they claim to be written by revelation, so could be utterly wrong. On the Race and Priesthood issue, I'm really happy with the statements in terms of equality. However, somehow I am then forced to reconcile quotes like: "Today, the Church 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; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else". Church Essay on Race and Priesthood - LDS.org Against this: "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" - George Albert Smith, The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949 Since this statement is from the first presidency and it makes the claim that is not policy but a direct commandment from the Lord, Doctrine of the Church, then it really creates a problem IMO. And, 2 Nephi 5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. Therefore, it's my opinion, and I'm happy to be proven wrong that declarative statements by the first presidency like the one cited by George Albert Smith in an official statement and quotes from scripture like the " Nephi 5:21 absolutely have to trump modern Church Essays (even though I don't like the racial implications) because the Essays do not claim any official revelation or authority via authorship. If Prophets and Scriptures could be that wrong, then we have a problem in know which bits are right, which statements at general conference are opinion and which are doctrine. Further, if we accept that such statements are Racist, and we've heard President Hinckley state that racists have no place in this church, which implies that Racism is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which I hope it is) then we have a situation where for 140 years Prophets and Apostles taught as doctrine a falsehood that would lead members astray and have very significant and punishing implications for our Black brothers and sisters. Yet we're told Prophets can't lead the church astray, so we have a logical conflict - only one statement can on the face of it be true - the question we all face is which one is it? For me I just have to be open minded. My conscience tells me racism is wrong, my intellect tells me statements need to be evidenced and consistent. I think this particular essay places a risk of causing a constitutional crisis in the church, as members might be unclear as to which Prophets to follow on this matter. IMO this is definitely a sizeable issue that Pres Monson and the Presiding authorities really could resolve through revelation.

Zen, I think it is a fair question to ask and I'm not sure on the answer. I don't think this presents a problem to us as Latter-Day saints the way it does to evangelical churches, as we have the option to accept that it 'might' not be recorded in its entirety or might be figurative. I'm not a fan of Dogma, I think our church has superb theology, but there are areas like this were there isn't much by the way of revealed commentary. Why would an omniscient God who can see into the future need to kill men, women, children, and all animals and insects on the planet besides the few saved? Why not simply wait? It could be argued that those people might kill the faithful, which is reasonable. It could be argued that, as in the BOM, if it didn't happen the righteous would be led astray by the wicked (What might appear to be inconsistent can still be consistent - consider how Nephi was commanded to kill Laban to obtain the plates or else the Nephites would perish in unbelief and yet they perished anyway - perhaps it would have happened much sooner). For me, the Doctrine and Covenants is an easier set of scriptures to understand, as it is simply the Lord speaking to us directly, rather than being an account of someone's life from which we might read to much into or too little into. As I said earlier, it does not affect my faith at all to simply assume (until proven otherwise) that the Noah story is figurative. I tend to think that anything that affects the nature or interpretation of God as Omniscient, Omnipotent, Fair, and Merciful has to be wrong somewhere. Hence my comments that IMO half of the Old Testament is nonsense (there are stacks of examples of issues with it you can find online if you Google - which is one reason why when Evangelist Christians attack the Book Of Mormon I find it ironic that they seem to view the Bible as perfect and flawless when it absolutely isn't). In the end, some things I park, some things I deem unreasonable or unlikely and wait for further information, and the rest I accept on the grounds of faith. Just my 2cents.

Hi Skippy, Very interesting response on the race and Priesthood. I've thought a lot about this of late as I too have pondered why such a doctrine existed when it was clear from the record the JS ordained Elijah Abel to the Priesthood. I did infact wonder if the teaching against black people from BY onwards was legitimate, so was greatly relived by the new essays. To your point on compliance, I understand your views. I've found this challenging too. To deny our Black brothers and sisters the right to be sealed together in the Temple and the joy of just having that ceremony as a family is infact (IMO) a great evil. How awful must those people have felt knowing that they could not be sealed and that they were viewed and possibly viewed themselves as second class citizens. I read the letters that were written to BY by black members begging to be sealed and wer rejected, as well as comment by some of the early brethren that seemed exceptionally harsh or derisory. I accept these were just men, but there is an issue that says do we tolerate this even from our own? During the Nuremburg trials (I know this is an extreme example) Nazis often tried to state that they followed their leaders instructions. But the trials concluded that was not a reasonable defence. I'm inclined to feel that in this sensitive matter it is one area that does get under my skin. Seeing harm done to an innocent person through such teachings to me is contrary to the mission of the Saviour. I do wonder how Brigham Young et al will be in good standing with the Lord because of this matter. I also wonder why the Lord allowed such a false doctrine to remain in the church causing damage and enabling racism for 140 years when a simple revelation would have resolved the matter instantly. If we can move from the WOW being a choice to being a Doctrine via revelation, then I'd hope that something as significant as a teaching about a whole race of people would warrant immediate intervention. But like many, there are things I simply don't understand. I just hope God recognises that I try to follow both the spirit and my conscience in such matters. Racist behaviour today would be grounds for excommunication. If that is the case and the Lord's judgement is unchanging then perhaps some of our earlier leaders might not quite be in such a good standing - unless the Lord recognises the relative nature of society - but we are supposed to be the light on a hill - I'd really love to have seen that played out in this matter - the Church leading from the front in the 1800's and banning all forms of racism long before the US Civil war. How cool would that have been to be ahead of the civil rights curve rather than behind it!

Hi Skippy, Without wishing to sound disagreeable, how is being asked not to discuss a topic, any topic even from a defensive standpoint, and closing or deleting threads not censorship? I'd be happier if you just said we are censoring those topics. As a member I can read about it in other forums, there's one on LDSFreedom right now discussing it, so I guess I can discuss it there. But it's not actually about that case, its about the scope to discuss that issue of comparable issues as members. I'm not afraid of these issues, I'm actually more concerned that we appear concerned when we try to control them out of our media. When Jesus stood trial before Pilot, he refused to prove he was the Son of God despite being able to do so. I'm positive that he could simply have shown Pilot something that would have instantly converted Pilot, but the Saviour accepted that he would or could not prove something to a man like pilot for whatever reason and accepted his fate as part of the plan. Just like the polygamy trials, the outcome of cases against the church have no bearing on truth. It's simply the national law asking the church to abide by arbitrary rules its societies comes up with. I'd be more interested in discussing how we would adapt if such cases ruled against us. anyhow, I've asked the question, and you've indicated no discussion on that case here, so i'll join the discussion over on LDSFreedom. Kind regards.

Hi Suzie, Apologies, it was a poorly structured question. Probably two points I muddled together: 1. I was actually noting what 'I think' was an instruction not to discuss, or not to post links to the court case happening in the UK at the moment and just wanted clarification. Can we discuss this case or not, is it simply that we don't post links to opposing arguments (not interested in these links anyway). For me it is important to be impartial. To evaluate the arguments from all sides and try to work out is it black and white or is it nuanced. Can it be perceived my way or do other peoples views have merit? 2. On the blacks and priesthood thing was more about how we deal with challenging information as members and how openly we discuss the contradictions of doing what is morally right vs obedient at the time - would we stand up and be counted against earlier church leaders since they got it wrong, or would we sit quietly and let our black brothers and sisters be denied the chance to be sealed in this life and feel that somehow they did something in the pre-existence that made them lesser citizens in God's eyes?

So I know I am new on here, and I will openly confess to holding liberal views on many issues - but hopefully that will not disqualify me from asking questions or seeking views in an appropriate manner. I noted a sticky that states to the effect of 'No discussion on certain matters of litigation'. I'm trying to be careful on my wording here. Does this mean you can't discuss the case at all, or does it mean that you simply can't post links to non LDS sources? I'm not much interested in the anti or excessively pro LDS views, I find both bias in equal measure. But as a person committed to the idea of democracy and freedom of speech - someone who supports the idea's established in 1649 by the trial of Charles the 1st, and in 1776 by the declaration of independence (and the later constitution of the USA), I do find some potential restrictions challenging. I'm certainly not saying its a free for all where all kinds of things are posted, and I recognise the need to prevent the destruction of a good forum by allowing trolling etc. But is legitimate historical, doctrinal, or legal examination of evidences allowed? Do we as latter-day saints risk doing ourselves a disservice if we are not aware of a well rounded argument. The case in point for me would be the recent Race and Priesthood essays on LDS.org. The essay points out that all prior statements about why Black people couldn't get the priesthood relating to the valience in the pre-existence are disavowed by the church and are false even if stated by prophets and apostles. To me, whilst I'm actually really happy with that outcome, am then caught in the complex implications of the same statement. What if as a Latter-Day saint living 100 years ago I objected to that teaching and said it was false, I could be excommunicated - but would that be fair? Would God look upon that and deem it acceptable, right, or valid to excommunicate someone for standing against a teaching the church now recognises and has confirmed were always false? What is the appropriate behaviour under such circumstances? Do we simply accept false teachings and allow them to continue (assuming we're even capable of detecting them)? Do we take a stand based on personal revelation? Is it ok to ask challenging questions when you are genuinely absolutely confused over these matters?

I love interacting with fellow saints, I love the sense of community, I love reading scriptures and studying on my own or discussiong history and doctrine with like minded individuals. I detest sitting through boring sacrament meetings with speakers who have not taken the time to prepare properly or simply regurgitate the same pat answers. I also despise sitting through watered down milk versions of Gospel Doctrine where the questions are comparable to those asked of investigators to the church (what is faith, what does it mean to repent). As for Priesthood, it varies, our old teacher was great, but the new guy splits us into groups and has us read the class for ourselves before our group answers one question out of the lesson via a spokes person. Nope, I may love the Gospel, but church attendance on Sunday can be very boring.

I'm active LDS, a temple recommend holder and a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament I simply do not consider factual or accurate. As for the story of Noah, I do not for one second think that Noah actually built and Ark able to carry multiple versions of each specie on the planet - not for a second. I think the second we go down that route we open up a cottage industry trying to explain how it was possible and deal with all of the inconsistencies and implications that arise as a result. Consider that the Bible has many known issues. Consider that we support the bible so far as it is translated correctly. In doing this is recognise that those books were cobbled together with all kinds of materials drawn in including Jewish Nationalistic writings, fables, poetry, etc. Did Moses really write and describe himself as the most humble prophet that ever lived? Did Moses really write that 'Since Moses died', and 'To this day nobody knows where he is buried'? Did Moses really describe himself as the greatest prophet in all the generations since (his own death)? I seriously doubt it. Yet NONE of this affects my belief in God and the Saviour. Is it possible that there was a world wide flood and Noah got all of the critters in a huge boat? Yes, since with God all things are possible. Do I think it happened that way - Not at all. At the root of this is a truth, a smaller story. Maybe a localised flood, a regional flood. Maybe it is based on a much older story (like the Epic of the Gilgamesh) that was imported into Judiasm by contact with the Babylonians. Accepting the idea that the global flood was real means that either; 1. The boat was big enough for multiple counts of every specie and sub variant on this planet along with their food needs. 2. God did Creation 2 after the flood and added additional species or subspecies without telling anyone. 3. After the flood a version of evolution saw one type of elephant become 2, and saw one type of spider become 3000 types. Not to mention the sheer variety of species of flowers and plants exclusive to certain parts of the world - why does the Amazon have some much plant life that does not exist in other parts of the world? Simply stated, overcoming these problems requires filling so many holes with non doctrine it gets silly. If the recent Blacks and Priesthood essay can simply state that all statements (even those official on the record statements of the First Presidency, and things like 2 Nephi 5) are wrong and disavowed, then determining that Noah has been overstated as fact is easy.