omegaseamaster75
-
Posts
2163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by omegaseamaster75
-
-
LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine":
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
Show me the official declaration produced by Brigham Young and the council of the 12 stating that denial of the priesthood to Blacks came by revelation.
You guys can stick your heads in the sand if you want but there is a reason that the official essay released by the church specifically says POLICY and not doctrine.
-
Neil L. Andersen:
A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.
The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been
-
Then why do you continue to deny that it was, and is, the doctrine of the Church that black people of African descent were not allowed to hold the Priesthood or participate in temple rites between the mid-1800s and 1978? You contradict yourself.
I have not even the least little idea of what you are trying to illustrate with the above. In neither case is the term "doctrine" or "policy" defined.
Policy = action
Doctrine = teaching
If I understand you correctly, your claim is that the Church never taught that those of black African descent were not allowed to hold the Priesthood or participate in temple rites. Your claim, rather, is that the Church simply had a policy to that effect.
This is simply false. TFP has already provided a few quotations establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the very highest leaders of the Church, even the president himself, taught this doctrine. It was not "mere policy".
Consider: Policy is set by Church leaders as seems them good. Why would President Kimball have been required to receive divine revelation to change this practice? If the doctrine were "mere policy", as you insist, a simple letter from the First Presidency would have sufficed.
TFP has done a bang-up job of posting a few such quotes. A word to the wise is sufficient.
I dont deny that it was taught that blacks could not hold the priesthood.....I am not sure how I can be more clear in what I have stated....
Just to be clear Doctrine= unchanged truth as per what I had previously
Policy = changeable depending on the political climate/political leanings of the church.
Does God change? I think that he does not his doctrines are eternal, you and TFP seem to want to hold on to this idea that denying the priesthood to blacks was doctrinal when in fact it is not...
Guess what guys sometimes it's OK to be wrong
-
Here Vort. Since the precedent of any reference counts as much as any other has been established, you can reference me:
"Denying the priesthood to those of African descent was once a doctrine of the LDS church." - TFP
My reference has the following credentials: A.B. in history and an M.A. in philosophy. A Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Southern California and postdoctoral work at Columbia, Princeton, and Union Theological Seminary.
What are your credentials...just for reference...
-
Lol. Do you really think a Sterling McMurrin quote means anything to me? Maybe you should quote Joanna Brooks, too. Or John Dehlin.
Discredit my reference if you want but, one of us has provided a reference the other has not.
-
Well, I've given my definition. I'll be interested to see what omegaseamaster's is, and how it manages to deny that the Church ever taught what it very obviously did teach. (And in effect still teaches; I have never seen any Church teaching that suggests the Church leaders just made a mistake for 120+ years, a mistake that required revelation to correct.)
The church taught that Blacks should not receive the priesthood there is no denying what is plain and simple fact. However it was to policy of the church to teach that not the doctrine of the church.
Doctrine:
1. GodheadThere are three separate personages in the Godhead: God the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (see Articles of Faith 1:1; Acts 7:55–56). The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22–23). Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation.
Policy: (see HB1) 17. Church PoliciesThis chapter consists of three sections. Each section includes subtopics in alphabetical order:
- 1.
Administrative policies
- 2.
Medical and health policies
- 3.
Policies on moral issues
Without posting specific policies you can see that the church has specific policies on specific items, this does not make them doctrine.
We teach both one is undeniable fact the other is open to interpretation.
Again please show me where is says the denying Blacks the priesthood was the DOCTRINE of the church.
- 1.
-
Conversation is over until you can prove to me that it was the doctrine of the church to deny Blacks the priesthood.....
Just so we are clear do you understand the difference between policy and doctrine?
David O. McKay believed that the ban was "not doctrine but...policy," as reported by Sterling McMurrin, his son Llewelyn McKay,[and Elder Paul H. Dunn. President McKay told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought.
reference: Sterling M. McMurrin and and L. Jackson Newell, Matters of Conscience: Conversations with Sterling M. McMurrin On Philosophy, Education, and Religion
-
We are way off topic, but I am still waiting for you to show me in writing that it was the doctrine of the church to deny Blacks the priesthood. I have shown you in writing that it was the POLICY of the church not doctrine in an essay which is published by the church on their website as a record of the history of the church which discusses Race and the priesthood.
-
For the record, this is false.
False, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false.
I hope that is sufficiently clear, but just in case it isn't, let me restate:
omegaseamaster75's statement above is FALSE.
Denying the Priesthood and temple blessings (past baptism) to blacks of African descent most definitely and provably WAS the doctrine of the Church from the mid-1800s until 1978. That is historical fact. It was. I was there.
Whatever it was you were trying to say, you got it wrong by saying that denying the Priesthood to blacks of African descent was not doctrine. Yes, it was. Period.
For the Record Vort is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. It was not doctrine, plain and simply it was not.........
Some quotes from the link that I have provided....Vort I will sit patiently wait for you to prove to me that it was doctrine of the church to deny the priesthood to Blacks....
In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.9
The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.10According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.11 Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.12 Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.
Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.16
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 unrighteous 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 leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24
-
We don't teach about sex how Kimball taught it, all the manuals have changed since his tenure, Brigham Young was a wrong on race (time has shown this to be true and the fact that denying the Blacks the priesthood was never doctrine). You say "But when the Spirit has witnessed to us that the church is true, that Joseph was a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, it behooves us to the accept that there are viable and reasonable explanations for these men's actions and teachings that would not place them strictly outside qualifying as prophets, seers and revelators."
Is it really that hard to suppose that our Prophets were/are fallible men? That they do actually pull their pants on one leg at a time like you and me? That they made mistakes?
Why can't Joseph Smith be a Prophet and someone who made mistakes or showed poor judgement in certain aspects of his life?
I am sorry I cannot live in the same vacuum as you.
-
Why would you advocate skipping church when the OP stated she wants to attend?
She is going out of town to visit her Grandparents, who are not members. There is limited time. I do not think the sky will part and a bolt of lightening will strike the OP if she ops to spend Sunday with her grandparents who I assume she does not see very often...
I am not advocating skipping church I am saying that it is an option and a viable one.
-
Struggling through lean times and challenges should bring you closer.
Worst advice ever....why would you take a difficult situation and make it harder if you didn't need to?
Get educated, Get a career, love will come.
-
Disagree. Lectures on Faith are scripture and were specifically written as doctrine by Joseph Smith who held himself accountable to God for its content. Furthermore, by common consent, the LoF were accepted as scripture by vote of all members from the top down. The LoF were removed by a committee without common consent. My answer to the OP is read the Lectures on Faith. They constitute some of the most profound doctrine on the subject of faith that can be or has ever been written to understand what is required to come unto Christ. We must know who we worship so that we can know how to worship Him, another tenet of Joseph Smith.
Don't you mean another tenet of Sidney Rigdon?
If they were scripture they would be published as such... is their truth in them yes.
-
You could skip it and spend the time with your family....
-
Lectures on Faith are not considered doctrine/modern scripture. The Lectures were included as the "doctrine" portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, They were removed from the 1921 edition with other items; that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.
I would definitely not start there in my research fro insight on LDS beliefs about the Holy Ghost.
-
My attempt at humor went unnoticed except by Vort....
Here is a link: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Office_of_the_Holy_Ghost
some fun reading
-
My apologies for coming across as condemnatory. Believe it or not, that wasn't my intent.
1. The point in my mind wasn't so much the copyright as the idea that we have two handbooks, or rather, that the handbook is in two parts: A public-facing part and a private part. If our leaders have seen fit to put part of the handbook in a private part not generally accessible, it seems reasonable to respect that distinction.
2. No, but official policy should generally come through official public channels.
3. I agree there is nothing secret in the handbook. But it is private; otherwise, the Church would simply openly publish Handbook 1. It does not, which clearly implies that it is not meant for public consumption.
Again, I apologize for my condemnatory tone. It was not intended so.
No offense taken, my view point is that if we are going to discuss these topics and the information is available why shouldn't we use it. Should handbook 1 be made for public consumption? I don't know, but would the brethren have us speculate about church policy?
Like most of HB1 the wording is very ambiguous and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
-
-
I have two questions about abortion.
- Are the folks who say "It's my body, it's my choice" aware that they are violently taking that choice away from another human life (the baby)? If your body is your choice, why would you just go and kill the baby and take that choice away from him or her?
- Does the LDS church have an official position on abortion?
1. This all depends on when you think that life/conciseness begins.
2. From handbook 1:
17.3.1AbortionThe Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
- 1.
Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.
- 2.
A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
- 3.
A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.
Church members who submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion may be subject to Church discipline.
As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.
-
As far as the OP, I would be a little irked that the bishopric wasn't shutting him down. That's not edifying or building up, in any way.
This.
We are so worried about offending or hurting feelings that we won't even stand up to people who are committing a wrong right in front of us.
-
-
I don't disagree. I just don't think we should lie when asked a point blank question. The bottom line is, in the day of the internet, the info is there. They're going to find it anyway. Just speak candidly I think. Don't necessarily bring it up on purpose. But if it's asked, answer. Clear, truthful, etc.
I'm not saying back down, the question should be answered. A true understanding of the doctrine to me is better understood by a believing member who accepts JS as a prophet.
To an investigator without this shared belief it just sounds like a cute story.
-
On the contrary, I think it's very well-supported Biblically. But as with many Biblical doctrines, it's a matter of interpretation, and most sectarian Christians would not accept our interpretations. Nevertheless, it certainly can be supported from a correct (LDS) Bible reading.
This is a non-started with nonmembers. "our interpretation" "our correct LDS bible reading"
-
Don't get baptized, don't bring it up again. If he is OK with you attending services keep doing that.
~
Reaching out for support after reading the Essays
in Advice Board
Posted
Do prophets make mistakes......even big ones? Heck D&C is mostly telling Joseph smith to repent
Moses disobeyed God's instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, "Must we fetch you water out of this rock?" He was chastized by the Lord afterward. (Numbers 20:)
Joshua was deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon when they claimed to come from a far country so they could get a peace accord with Joshua. Then the Israelites found that instead of living a long distant away, that people from Gibeon lived among them. (Joshua 9:)
Gordon B. Hinckley was deceived by Mark Hofmann, who had done so in order to obtain money. Hofmann was even responsible for the death of some people. After some investigation, he was discovered and sentenced.
Gideon repeatedly asked the Lord for signs even though the Lord has said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." (Judges 7:; Matthew 12:39)
Nathan told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project. The Lord later told Nathan that such was not His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by another. (2 Samuel 7:)
Jonah felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. (Jonah 4:1)
So Jonah the prophet had some personal prejudices is it to far to think that Brigham Young had some as well?