Investigator Needs Help

[Snow]

Originally posted by Please@Sep 3 2005, 01:06 PM

I definitely use snide remarks but I certainly wouldn't call them intelligent.

←

Agreed but you are still young so there's hope...

[Snow]

Originally posted by carlotta@Aug 29 2005, 11:32 AM

Awhile ago I started thinking that the Mormon church would be a good move for me and I started talking to missionaries and became even more interested. I was about ready to be baptised but I wanted to study more and I feel I would really love to be a part of the church but I don't know if the way I feel would be acceptable to the church. I beleive the church history for the most part but I don't really think he found actual plates and some of the things in the Book of Mormon I just can't rationalize in my head. I just don't think there could be this past civilization that no one else knows about. These feelings aren't likely to change but I do beleive that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I think I just need to know if there would be a place for me if I never came to feel any differently. I also don't share the church's position on homosexualtiy. I realize that what I'm saying may seem insulting but I don't mean it that way at all. I may at some point change my mind on these issues but it's more possible that I won't. This church fits me closer than any other but I don't want to be a hypocrite. (I've asked these questions with many members and I get the widest variety of answers that it confuses me even more.) Can anyone help?

←

Carlotta,

Back to your original question...

As you can see from this thread, members of the Church disagree on plenty of things. You needn't believe everything that I or any other member believes in order to be Mormon. However, I would say that a belief in the truth of the Book of Mormon is pretty basic to conversion. That being said - there are lots of people in the Church or even in wider Christianity that are perfectly comfortable in considering spiritual truths found in scriputes (Bible or Book of Mormon) seperately or differently than historical truths.

However - I for one accept that Book of Mormon is a source of spiritual truth and also is historically true.... for what that is worth to you.

[daizymae]

Originally posted by snow

It is not a disputed issue - by anybody in the entire world - except you apparently.

That's an interesting statement considering that you're the only one on your side of the argument in this thread.

[Snow]

Originally posted by daizymae+Sep 3 2005, 09:29 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-snow

It is not a disputed issue - by anybody in the entire world - except you apparently.

That's an interesting statement considering that you're the only one on your side of the argument in this thread.

←

Newsflash Daisy - not one single person has disputed the key point. All you have done is disagree but there's not one single iota of evidence or reasoning to contradict me.

...and why, if you disagree, haven't you disputed me with evidence of reasoning? Because you have no evidence and know that you can't dispute it, all you can do is make remarks like you just did. At somepoint it is put up or shut up time.

If you can dispute me, go ahead, I'll wait.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 3 2005, 11:39 PM-->

Originally posted by daizymae@Sep 3 2005, 09:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-snow

It is not a disputed issue - by anybody in the entire world - except you apparently.

That's an interesting statement considering that you're the only one on your side of the argument in this thread.

←

Newsflash Daisy - not one single person has disputed the key point. All you have done is disagree but there's not one single iota of evidence or reasoning to contradict me.

...and why, if you disagree, haven't you disputed me with evidence of reasoning? Because you have no evidence and know that you can't dispute it, all you can do is make remarks like you just did. At somepoint it is put up or shut up time.

If you can dispute me, go ahead, I'll wait.

←

Line upon line kind of learning, which even Christ did growing up, means we will make mistakes and learn from them.

Some are big enough to cause outsiders to take pause and even some insiders to question.

But, did we learn from it, should be the question, not whether or not the mistake was big enough to worry about.

The bible and book of mormon are chucker block full of the mistakes of people in the past. My favorite was the story of Sampson who was chosen from before he was born. He blew it big time, but in the end he came through and his story teaches us pleanty.

Do we debate about his being called and chosen just because of his big mistake?

I am really answering Daisy here more than supporting Snow.

Those who are looking for perfect men and history will not find them in the church, but those who are looking for wisdom and truth, they will find those in the Church. Many have gone on before us learning and building from what they learned. That is what makes the church God's work.

[daizymae]

I don't need to dispute you with "facts" Snow. My testimony is confirmation enough for me, but as has been demonstrated with your comments to Ray, a testimony means nothing to you.

I disagree with you that Brigham Young made a mistake. Period. Throw all the "facts" you want in my face, and I'm not going to agree with you. I've received my confirmation. Have you received yours?

[daizymae]

“Well, Brother Brigham, have you had visions?” Yes, I have. “Have you had revelations?” Yes, I have them all the time, I live constantly by the principle of revelation. …

“Do you have the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ?” I will leave that for others to judge. If the Lord requires anything of this people, and speaks through me, I will tell them of it. … We all live by the principle of revelation. … Are the heavens opened? Yes. … “Do you know the will and mind of the Lord?” Yes, concerning this people, and concerning myself. Does every one of my brethren and sisters know the will of the Lord? Let me say to the Latter-day Saints, if they will … follow the Lord Jesus Christ … , [they] will receive more, know more, and have more of the Spirit of revelation.

(Discourses of Brigham Young, pages 39–40.)

Just a quote I ran across while looking for some things for primary this morning. Brigham Young may have made a mistake in the eyes of some, but I firmly believe, as with all prophets, that he spoke for the Lord in all he did as prophet as the church.

[Snow]

Originally posted by daizymae@Sep 4 2005, 06:00 AM

I disagree with you that Brigham Young made a mistake.  Period.  Throw all the "facts" you want in my face, and I'm not going to agree with you.  I've received my confirmation.  Have you received yours?

←

... and see, that's the part of it that I find so annoying in Mormonism. There are lot's of Mormons who are so uneducated on what we believe and what our history is and so really have no idea what's going on with the Church. But it goes beyond that - you throw in "I have a testimony" and they lose the faculties of reason and thought. It's almost incomprehensible and it absolutely disheartening that we have such poor thinkers in our midst.

Fortunately Mormons, on average, are better educated than non-Mormons having reached higher levels of formal education with generally higher SAT scores and the like so I take encouragement that with more education - generally better thinking skills follow. With that, a love of knowledge develops and Mormons, hopefully, seek truth rather than run from it.

Let me illustrate: In 1854 Brigham Young said "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the priesthood... it will be time enough to remove the curse of Cain from Cain and his posterity." The curse he was referring to precluded them from having the priesthood, He said: "Any man having one drop of seed of [Cain]... in him cannot hold the priesthoodan , if no other prophet ever spake it before, I will say it now."

Any single person with a brain and who knows Church History knows that at the moment Brigham Young said that, he was already wrong as Joseph Smith had already ordained blacks to the priesthood, for example: Elder Elijah Abel. Then in 1978 Spencer Kimball proved him wrong again when the ban was lifted.

Those are fact - they can't be disputed - they can only be ignored as you, Daisy, have done.

It is interesting that while you choose to ignore the facts, other thinking and reasoning Mormons accepted the fact that Brigham Young was wrong. The apostle Bruce R. McConkie said:

“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 .... 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."

So - here we have an apostle, a prophet seer and revelator that openly and loudly admits that he, and other apostles and other presidents of the Church were flat out wrong - but you Daisy stick you head in the sand and say, Brigham Young don't make no mistake and anyone (including apostles) who say he did, don't know what they be talk'n bout.

The sad part is that you claim to know this by virtue of your testimony. We in the Church understand testimonies to be a matter of faith as confirmed by the spirit so you are really claiming that your mistaken beliefs have been confirmed by the Holy Ghost. That begs the question - why would the Holy Ghost confirm error as truth. The answer is that in our understanding of the gospel - the Holy Ghost would not confirm error as truth and so your testimony is a false testimony founded on error and lack of judgement - not founded on light and knowledge and if your "testimony" is wrong on that matter, maybe it is wrong on other matters as well. That's scary. Mormons like you are too common. The act as if their testimony comes from God but the testimony really just comes from their own uneducated thinking - just dogmatic inculcation (look it up).

And - the danger in mistaking dogmatic inculcation for testimony is that when something causes you to finally understand the truth - and that truth proves your fake testimony wrong then you run the risk of having your whole house of testimony cards come tumbling down. What if you learn that this prophet lied, or that prophet was in (caused) a banking scandal, or that such prophet was a bigot, or such prophet got his doctrine wrong or that such and such prophet knowingly broke the law or even that the prophet over there broke the word of wisdom by drinking and selling booze (and by the way, all those things happened and you can learn about them in their own writings). Then, if you decide to accept truth, you become enbittered with the Church cuz you think they taught you things that were untrue. There are bunches of ex-mormons just like that.... Not me however. My testimony is built upon demonstably wrong preconception of how things were or are so, when I am faced with some bit of news that the Church or its leaders are less than perfect and in some cases far from perfect, fine, that, no problem, I understand how things really work and how, in spite of human shortcomings, God uses imperfect men and women to further his aims.

Now Daisy, I don't think you are dumb or bad or messed up. You are just young and uneducated, or at least think like one who is young and uneducated. Sometimes people's thinking is so unsophisticated and their lack of questioning so profound that age and education fail to improve them but that is probably not the case with you. You will grow in experience, maybe get some more education, start reading books on the Church and gospel and then, like the apostle Elder McConkie, you will be able to admit that you, and former Church prophets can and have been wrong.

... at least I have faith that you won't always be the kind of person that see black says white just cuz that what they learned in Sunday School.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 4 2005, 04:54 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-daizymae@Sep 4 2005, 06:00 AM

I disagree with you that Brigham Young made a mistake.  Period.  Throw all the "facts" you want in my face, and I'm not going to agree with you.  I've received my confirmation.  Have you received yours?

←

... and see, that's the part of it that I find so annoying in Mormonism. There are lot's of Mormons who are so uneducated on what we believe and what our history is and so really have no idea what's going on with the Church. But it goes beyond that - you throw in "I have a testimony" and they lose the faculties of reason and thought. It's almost incomprehensible and it absolutely disheartening that we have such poor thinkers in our midst.

Fortunately Mormons, on average, are better educated than non-Mormons having reached higher levels of formal education with generally higher SAT scores and the like so I take encouragement that with more education - generally better thinking skills follow. With that, a love of knowledge develops and Mormons, hopefully, seek truth rather than run from it.

Let me illustrate: In 1854 Brigham Young said "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the priesthood... it will be time enough to remove the curse of Cain from Cain and his posterity." The curse he was referring to precluded them from having the priesthood, He said: "Any man having one drop of seed of [Cain]... in him cannot hold the priesthoodan , if no other prophet ever spake it before, I will say it now."

Any single person with a brain and who knows Church History knows that at the moment Brigham Young said that, he was already wrong as Joseph Smith had already ordained blacks to the priesthood, for example: Elder Elijah Abel. Then in 1978 Spencer Kimball proved him wrong again when the ban was lifted.

Those are fact - they can't be disputed - they can only be ignored as you, Daisy, have done.

It is interesting that while you choose to ignore the facts, other thinking and reasoning Mormons accepted the fact that Brigham Young was wrong. The apostle Bruce R. McConkie said:

“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 .... 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."

So - here we have an apostle, a prophet seer and revelator that openly and loudly admits that he, and other apostles and other presidents of the Church were flat out wrong - but you Daisy stick you head in the sand and say, Brigham Young don't make no mistake and anyone (including apostles) who say he did, don't know what they be talk'n bout.

The sad part is that you claim to know this by virtue of your testimony. We in the Church understand testimonies to be a matter of faith as confirmed by the spirit so you are really claiming that your mistaken beliefs have been confirmed by the Holy Ghost. That begs the question - why would the Holy Ghost confirm error as truth. The answer is that in our understanding of the gospel - the Holy Ghost would not confirm error as truth and so your testimony is a false testimony founded on error and lack of judgement - not founded on light and knowledge and if your "testimony" is wrong on that matter, maybe it is wrong on other matters as well. That's scary. Mormons like you are too common. The act as if their testimony comes from God but the testimony really just comes from their own uneducated thinking - just dogmatic inculcation (look it up).

And - the danger in mistaking dogmatic inculcation for testimony is that when something causes you to finally understand the truth - and that truth proves your fake testimony wrong then you run the risk of having your whole house of testimony cards come tumbling down. What if you learn that this prophet lied, or that prophet was in (caused) a banking scandal, or that such prophet was a bigot, or such prophet got his doctrine wrong or that such and such prophet knowingly broke the law or even that the prophet over there broke the word of wisdom by drinking and selling booze (and by the way, all those things happened and you can learn about them in their own writings). Then, if you decide to accept truth, you become enbittered with the Church cuz you think they taught you things that were untrue. There are bunches of ex-mormons just like that.... Not me however. My testimony is built upon demonstably wrong preconception of how things were or are so, when I am faced with some bit of news that the Church or its leaders are less than perfect and in some cases far from perfect, fine, that, no problem, I understand how things really work and how, in spite of human shortcomings, God uses imperfect men and women to further his aims.

Now Daisy, I don't think you are dumb or bad or messed up. You are just young and uneducated, or at least think like one who is young and uneducated. Sometimes people's thinking is so unsophisticated and their lack of questioning so profound that age and education fail to improve them but that is probably not the case with you. You will grow in experience, maybe get some more education, start reading books on the Church and gospel and then, like the apostle Elder McConkie, you will be able to admit that you, and former Church prophets can and have been wrong.

... at least I have faith that you won't always be the kind of person that see black says white just cuz that what they learned in Sunday School.

←

Maybe presenting your personal feelings in a less bias way would be appeasing. I completely agree with the fact that not a single prophet or apostle was perfect, we came to the earth to learn, and just because a person recieves confirmation of something by the spirit, doesn't always mean that it is of the devil either. The reason I say this is that a lot of times people aren't ready (like early saints) for something. The lord had to ease them into something so that they could more easily accept it. Early in the church, Neither Blacks or Whites were ready for the news of Blacks receiving the priesthood. Why cause the anger between people in the early beginnings of the church? The church and country had a lot of changing to do before there could be any announcement, or changes. There was, and unfortunately still is a lot of animosity concerning the melting of the barriers of race and gender in areas of the united states. The people just weren't appropriately prepared for these things yet. I'm sure that it took a lot of fasting and prayer on the the prophets and apostles of these days, maybe even a bit of confusion or frustration in trying to understand why the lord would give one prompting to one prophet at one time, and overturn that in the future.

Attacking a persons testimony and personal feelings on a subject just because you see it differently might not necessarily be the way to go. Maybe you should be a little more sensitive to people when you are being blunt. Like I said, I agree with your theory, I don't agree with your tone, and If I recall right, the lord wouldn't endorse a person being insensitive to another of his children's feelings, just because they disagree. You can get your point across without being so harsh.

Daizy, in saying this I am not disagreeing with you either, I guess what I really was trying to say is that the prophets give the revelation that is right for the people of that time, it doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means that it was the wrong time.

B) happy day

-missy

[tiffybird24]

I want to ad a little bit to what missy said. I agree with everything that she said and even looking back on that quote that daizy gave it says nothing about anyone being completely wrong. It simply says that they were in the dark. Perhaps the Lord left them in the dark for the same reason that missy gave.

[tiffybird24]

Originally posted by tiffybird24@Sep 5 2005, 11:43 PM

I want to ad a little bit to what missy said.  I agree with everything that she said and even looking back on that quote that daizy gave it says nothing about anyone being completely wrong.  It simply says that they were in the dark.  Perhaps the Lord left them in the dark for the same reason that missy gave.

←

sorry...i meant quote that snow gave.....don't ask why i said daizy

[daizymae]

Originally posted by snow

“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 .... 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."

This is the key point to me.....the prophets spoke based on what had been revealed to them. To me, a mistake would have been that they received revelation, or at least had some knowledge, that blacks would receive the priesthood when they would and then still teach that it wouldn't happen. That was not the case. When the revelation came, the policy was changed. Until then, what more could we have expected from those who's understanding what different?

I continue to maintain my stance that Brigham Young and prohpets after him taught what they understood and led the church by revelation.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by daizymae+Sep 6 2005, 07:45 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-snow

“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 .... 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."

This is the key point to me.....the prophets spoke based on what had been revealed to them. To me, a mistake would have been that they received revelation, or at least had some knowledge, that blacks would receive the priesthood when they would and then still teach that it wouldn't happen. That was not the case. When the revelation came, the policy was changed. Until then, what more could we have expected from those who's understanding what different?

I continue to maintain my stance that Brigham Young and prohpets after him taught what they understood and led the church by revelation.

←

Wisdom has been spoken here by Snow, Daisy, and Missy as well as Tiffybird. Thank you all.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 3 2005, 10:55 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Sep 3 2005, 01:06 PM

I definitely use snide remarks but I certainly wouldn't call them intelligent.

←

Agreed but you are still young so there's hope...

←

Yes I am young.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+ Sep 2 2005, 05:50 PM-->

1. It is not a question of obedience. Being led to believe the wrong thing is every bit as much being led astray as is being led to obey the wrong thing.

I’m going to try to clear this up for you as simply as I know how, and all I ask is that you try to understand me.

‘1) I think the first thing you should try to understand is that you were the one who said it was a question of obedience, when you said:

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@ Sep 1 2005, 06:12 PM

Sure Ray - blame the obeyer rather than the the ones that exhort you to obey.

It was at that point that I asked you to clarify what you thought Brigham Young asked or told [whoever] to obey, which was then followed by you saying that it wasn’t a question of obedience. I will now ask you to explain how that makes sense to you?

2) The second thing I think you should try to understand is that you are saying that Brigham Young “led you” to believe the “wrong” thing, when in fact Brigham Young didn’t “lead you” or anyone else to believe anything wrong.

Or in other words, your understanding of what Brigham Young meant is either right or wrong, and what you think he meant has been influenced by either God or Satan, the ultimate sources of either light or darkness. From that point you then became a more determined agent for either light or darkness as you then spread what you thought, or continue to think, to others.

And since I know you still can’t quite see the “light” on this, I’ll rephrase what I just said.

When you read (active tense) the words of Brigham Young, or anyone else for that matter, you either consciously or subconsciously ask somebody to help you understand what you just read, and thereupon you are given both light and darkness to choose from until you finally settle upon what you think is the right answer, or what you think is the better choice from all the choices you can think of.

And while you may think that you are only thinking to yourself, or that you are merely using your brain, without the assistance of anyone else, you are still in fact listening and accepting what you think is the better choice, from all the available choices you are given from a source of either light or darkness.

And while I know this is true, you will only know it if or when God helps you see the light.

If the teaching that 1. Blacks should not get the priesthood and 2. that they would not get it until all the non-blacks had it, is scriptural, then show us that in the scriptures. Go ahead.

I didn’t say it was in the scriptures. I said that despite all the knowledge and understanding Brigham Young had concerning the scriptures, he still did not think that black Africans should have the priesthood, and I said and continue to say, that was because God had not revealed to him (or helped him to understand) that black Africans should have the priesthood at that time. And surely, if God had wanted Brigham Young to understand that black Africans should have had the priesthood at that time, God would have revealed that knowledge and understanding to Brigham Young.

Or in other words, you are essentially saying that it was wrong for Brigham Young to not know what you think he should have known, or what some other prophets of God came to know later, and I am saying that if God had wanted Brigham Young to know that, God would have revealed that to Brigham Young. And I am also saying that it is not wrong to not know something you don’t know or do not correctly understand, just as it is not considered wrong for you to not understand what you do not understand.

I do not believe for one moment that God reveals to you what the 5x5 equals or confirms to you via the spirit that you attended grammar school. Nobody I know of but you believes such nonsense. Oh - I get what you are really trying to convince us of - that you are so close to God that you are in natural communion with the Spirit and God, recognizing your spirituality opens the conduits of knowledge and pours his truth upon you.

The fact that you don’t believe it doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not what I have said is true, and here again you show that you don’t even correctly understand what I meant or what someone else meant when they said something, even though you think you do.

I will now hope and pray that everything I have said in this post will help you to better understand what I meant, having assurance that it is possible since you do know enough to say:

If you were in true communion with the spirit, your thinking skills would be better.

… even though it was a little disheartening to see you say this:

I get it. I just don't buy it. God can and does reveal truth, but, says I, not like you describe... for every single little things no matter how insignificant, obviously or trifling

…because, Yes, only through God can we come to know the truth about everything, just as only through the power of Satan can our knowledge and potential be diminished.

Btw, Snow, I called off my attempt to break my addiction to this board because I thought it was important for me to try to help you see what I see, but I am now going to resume my attempt to break my addiction with hopes that I won't feel the urge to respond to you again... even though I will still be curious to see what you say.

[pushka]

I'd just like to make it clear that someone, at least, is reading this thread and agrees with Snow's remarks...I do.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Sep 6 2005, 02:17 PM

Btw, Snow, I called off my attempt to break my addiction to this board because I thought it was important for me to try to help you see what I see, but I am now going to resume my attempt to break my addiction with hopes that I won't feel the urge to respond to you again... even though I will still be curious to see what you say.

←

Ray, I think you are a fine person with his heart firmly in the right place. Your thought processing is so odd however, I find a fair portion of what you say to be weird and irrational.

...but, variety is the spice of life so vive le difference!

[Snow]

Originally posted by daizymae@Sep 6 2005, 05:45 AM

I continue to maintain my stance that Brigham Young and prohpets after him taught what they understood and led the church by revelation.

←

Stop and think about what you just said. If that were true, then the Spirt would have had to reveal error to Brigham Young. Why would the Spirit do that. Does God teach error or does God teach truth?

The simplest, and correct answer (at least according to later apostles) is that Brigham Young taught his own opinion instead of God's truth. You don't have to believe that Brigham Young was contradicting God's will, just that he let his own opinion get in the way.

I can tell that you have in your head that prophets don't make mistakes as prophets and so you are trying to figure out a way to make that idea work... blaming the Spirit for error is not a satisfactory response however. Prophets have a long history of misdeeds.

-Adam disobeyed God and then blamed it on Eve.

-Abraham lied about his wife being his wife and falsely reported that she was his sister.

-Noah got drunk and passed out.

-David was complicit in the murder of the husband of a woman David stole and seduced.

-Peter the apostle and probable president of the Church following the crucifixion lied and denied Christ three times.

-Joseph Smith lied publically about his polygamy.

-Brigham Young was a racist by today's standards.

-Joseph Fielding Smith thought that possibly the single greatest sin of wickedness that man or woman could commit was to use birth control.

Prophets are people. People make mistakes. No problem - it doesn't make the Chruch any less true or make them any less called of God. It simply mean that they are human.

[daizymae]

What an enlightening discussion! As we've digressed from the original topic, we've learned the following:

~Traveler is narrow-minded and lacks reasoning

~Ray is "like the last guy to speak for God" (do I detect a hint of Southern California valley girl here....how disturbing) and is a silly, self-righteous, blowhard who uses a testimony (OF ALL THINGS!) to defend his beliefs.

~Ray has a habit of "speaking for God, speaking for Christ, and speaking for Brigham Young" and really ought to just "put up or shut up".

~Ray is "so close to God that [he is] in natural communion with the Spirit and God, recognizing [his] spirituality opens the conduits of knowledge and pours his truth upon [him]" (boy, this one just drips with sarcasm).

~Ray has no "special insight or spirit of light and truth", but his heart is in the right place (lucky guy!)

~Ray's thinking skills are "weak and hazy", because he is not in tune enough with the spirit

~Please is a hypocrite

~Please is too young to use snideness intelligently (unlike others who can find complete intelligence in their snideness)

~If Daizymae would just get more education, her thinking skills would improve

~Daizymae is a backwoods redneck with her head in the sand

~Daizymae doesn't understand church history because she lacks a brain

~Daizymae has a fake testimony, but she too has hope and will eventually understand that what she has learned all her life in Sunday School was a farce

~Ray's thought process is odd, weird, and irrational, but hey, at least he adds a little spice to life

~Snow has capabilities to see what's in Daizymae's head (AMAZING!!!)

Thanks for helping us see the error of our ways Snow! I know I'll be eternally grateful!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK....all sarcasm aside now, let me ask a few questions.

Originally posted by snow+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(snow)</div>

not one single person has disputed the key point.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the entire premise of this argument. Nobody has disagreed that BY taught what he did. The disagreement is whether or not he taught those things based soley on his own opinion or whether he taught them based on what had been revealed to him by God. Neither of those points can be proven by anybody here.

Originally posted by snow+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(snow)</div>

The main point has been, from the second we started on this that BY incorrectly taught that blacks would not get the priesthood until (.... blah, blah blah, I've only said it nine times now). As a factual matter, he was wrong. That's not my presupposition, it what he said in 1854 and what actually happened in 1978 that proved him wrong.

I don't see this as proof. The argument on the other side of the table here has been that Brigham Young taught based on what had been revealed to him up to that point. Nobody on that side of the argument can prove that that was the case either. Until Brigham Young makes his appearance in this discussion, nobody can say what was, or was not, revealed to him as a prophet.

<!--QuoteBegin-snow

@

If that were true (referring to daizymae's stance that BY led the church by revelation), then the Spirt would have had to reveal error to Brigham Young. Why would the Spirit do that. Does God teach error or does God teach truth?  The simplest, and correct answer (at least according to later apostles) is that Brigham Young taught his own opinion instead of God's truth. You don't have to believe that Brigham Young was contradicting God's will, just that he let his own opinion get in the way.

Can you clarify your position on this? My understanding of your statement is that you believe Brigham Young did not teach by the Spirit. You are correct that the Spirit does not teach error. So, if BY was teaching by the spirit, then what he taught was not a mistake. If he was not teaching by the Spirit, then he is in essence a false prophet because ignoring the Spirit and teaching one's own opinion contradicts the very definition of prophethood.

<!--QuoteBegin-snow

...if the priesthood ban was a mistake - I don't know for sure if it was - then it seems reasonable that God stood back and let the Church put it's own house in order

You seem to be arguing pretty heavily that the ban was a mistake (or that the teaching that resulted in the ban was a mistake)....so do you know, or don't you? You've pointed out "at least nine times" that you can present proof that is was a mistake, so I'm a little confused by this statement.

Originally posted by snow+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(snow)</div>

By the way, the time might come when the Church apologizes and says it was wrong to even make the ban.

This, I can agree with. And, if the time comes that the church says that the ban was wrong, I am humble enough to concede.

<!--QuoteBegin-snow

Since the apology was never issued we don't know what exactly it would apologize for but certainly not for the Lord.

And until an apology is issued, we can assume that there is no need for one because the teachings of BY were not those of man, but of the Lord.

You would do well, Snow, to take the advice given in the very quote you posted by Elder McConkie:

“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 .... 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."

[Snow]

Daisey

Perhaps I have misunderstood the entire premise of this argument. Nobody has disagreed that BY taught what he did. The disagreement is whether or not he taught those things based soley on his own opinion or whether he taught them based on what had been revealed to him by God. Neither of those points can be proven by anybody here.

Daisy, you seem to get it in a little later on in your post above but you are just missing the whole boat here. It can be proven. 1978 was the proof. No informed person disputes it. It is an accepted fact. I can’t imagine why I should have to but here is the logical proof:

1. Brigham Young said blacks would not get the priesthood until after all non-blacks had gotten it.

2. In 1978 blacks got the priesthood prior to all non-blacks getting the priesthood.

Conclusion A: Since 2 is a historical fact, 1 must have been in error.

3. In our Church we dogmatically believe that the Spirit cannot teach error.

4. Since 1 was in error and 3 is true, the Spirit could not have been the cause of 1.

Conclusion B: The error in 1 was caused by something other than the spirit.

Taken for granted: Brigham Young was not crazy.

Conclusion C: Brigham Young was in sound mind and in error on account of his own self and not the Spirit.

I don't see this as proof. The argument on the other side of the table here has been that Brigham Young taught based on what had been revealed to him up to that point. Nobody on that side of the argument can prove that that was the case either. Until Brigham Young makes his appearance in this discussion, nobody can say what was, or was not, revealed to him as a prophet.

Of course it is proof - if we accept dogmatically that the Spirit 1. knows the truth, and 2, does not teach anything other than the truth. The apostle Bruce R. McConkie got it. He was a prophet seer and revelator. Why do you think he was wrong but BY was right?

Can you clarify your position on this? My understanding of your statement is that you believe Brigham Young did not teach by the Spirit. You are correct that the Spirit does not teach error. So, if BY was teaching by the spirit, then what he taught was not a mistake. If he was not teaching by the Spirit, then he is in essence a false prophet because ignoring the Spirit and teaching one's own opinion contradicts the very definition of prophethood.

I agree the Spirit does not teach error. Obviously BY was in error on this particular point, 1978 proves it; but I absolutely DO NOT believe that BY was a false prophet.

1. He never claimed that his teaching on when blacks would get the priesthood was a matter of revelation or inspiration.

2. Prophets make mistakes. That doesn’t make them false prophets; that only makes them human. As example. Joseph Smith needed money to print the Book of Mormon. He said that as a matter of revelation that if Hiram Paige and Oliver Cowdery would go to Canada they would find men they who would buy the Book of Mormon copyright and the money could then be used to print it. Oliver and Hiram went and failed. They came back and asked Joseph how could it be that they had failed. Joseph Smith prayed for an answer and it was revealed to him, "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil."

3. Joseph Smith wrote ...”I visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such" (Joseph Smith, _History of the Church_, 5:265).

So... either Brigham Young was not speaking as a prophet or if he got a revelation on the matter (which he never claimed he did) then the revelation was either of man or the devil.

You seem to be arguing pretty heavily that the ban was a mistake (or that the teaching that resulted in the ban was a mistake)....so do you know, or don't you? You've pointed out "at least nine times" that you can present proof that is was a mistake, so I'm a little confused by this statement.

Without going back to check what I said, I doubt I said it just the way you did now. I am seldom that careless with my wording. I cannot PROVE it. I can provide evidence or may an argument that it was a mistake. Not enough is currently known by lay member to know if it was a mistake.

Unless someone is really interested, I won’t go into it, but the case would go something like this:

-Blacks were welcomed into the Church initially.

-Joseph Smith ordained blacks to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

-Then the Church faced big trouble from violent pro-slavery forces.

-The Church backed off it welcome of blacks and took a more neutral stance.

-Brigham Young was a racists by modern standards though his view were typical of the era.

-Brigham Young banned blacks from having the priesthood.

-Brigham Young was wrong about the timing of when blacks would have the priesthood.

-There is little or no scriptural evidence to support the the ban for black Africans.

-Even if Cain or Ham were cursed, we in the Church believe that we are not responsible for our forebearers sins and so a curse on Cain would not cause his offspring to be punished for his error.

-... and so on.

And until an apology is issued, we can assume that there is no need for one because the teachings of BY were not those of man, but of the Lord.

You would do well, Snow, to take the advice given in the very quote you posted by Elder McConkie:

I know you are not saying that with a straight face since I accept what Elder McConkie says about mistakes of the past while you ignore him.

Tell you what. I am meeting with the Elder Quorum Presidency tonight. I am going to put it to them simply about what BY said in 1854 then remind them of what happened in 1978. Then I’ll ask them what’s the deal. I bet that they answer, so what. BY was mistaken. Tops - it will be a 90 second discussion. This one is just too simple.

[Snow]

Perhaps I have misunderstood the entire premise of this argument. Nobody has disagreed that BY taught what he did. The disagreement is whether or not he taught those things based soley on his own opinion or whether he taught them based on what had been revealed to him by God. Neither of those points can be proven by anybody here.

Daisy, you seem to get it in a little later on in your post above but you are just missing the whole boat here. It can be proven. 1978 was the proof. No informed person disputes it. It is an accepted fact. I can’t imagine why I should have to but here is the logical proof:

1. Brigham Young said blacks would not get the priesthood until after all non-blacks had gotten it.

2. In 1978 blacks got the priesthood prior to all non-blacks getting the priesthood.

Conclusion A: Since 2 is a historical fact, 1 must have been in error.

3. In our Church we dogmatically believe that the Spirit cannot teach error.

4. Since 1 was in error and 3 is true, the Spirit could not have been the cause of 1.

Conclusion B: The error in 1 was caused by something other than the spirit.

Taken for granted: Brigham Young was not crazy.

Conclusion C: Brigham Young was in sound mind and in error on account of his own self and not the Spirit.

I don't see this as proof. The argument on the other side of the table here has been that Brigham Young taught based on what had been revealed to him up to that point. Nobody on that side of the argument can prove that that was the case either. Until Brigham Young makes his appearance in this discussion, nobody can say what was, or was not, revealed to him as a prophet.

Of course it is proof - if we accept dogmatically that the Spirit 1. knows the truth, and 2, does not teach anything other than the truth. The apostle Bruce R. McConkie got it. He was a prophet seer and revelator. Why do you think he was wrong but BY was right?

Can you clarify your position on this? My understanding of your statement is that you believe Brigham Young did not teach by the Spirit. You are correct that the Spirit does not teach error. So, if BY was teaching by the spirit, then what he taught was not a mistake. If he was not teaching by the Spirit, then he is in essence a false prophet because ignoring the Spirit and teaching one's own opinion contradicts the very definition of prophethood.

I agree the Spirit does not teach error. Obviously BY was in error on this particular point, 1978 proves it; but I absolutely DO NOT believe that BY was a false prophet.

1. He never claimed that his teaching on when blacks would get the priesthood was a matter of revelation or inspiration.

2. Prophets make mistakes. That doesn’t make them false prophets; that only makes them human. As example. Joseph Smith needed money to print the Book of Mormon. He said that as a matter of revelation that if Hiram Paige and Oliver Cowdery would go to Canada they would find men they who would buy the Book of Mormon copyright and the money could then be used to print it. Oliver and Hiram went and failed. They came back and asked Joseph how could it be that they had failed. Joseph Smith prayed for an answer and it was revealed to him, "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil."

3. Joseph Smith wrote ...”I visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such" (Joseph Smith, _History of the Church_, 5:265).

So... either Brigham Young was not speaking as a prophet or if he got a revelation on the matter (which he never claimed he did) then the revelation was either of man or the devil.

You seem to be arguing pretty heavily that the ban was a mistake (or that the teaching that resulted in the ban was a mistake)....so do you know, or don't you? You've pointed out "at least nine times" that you can present proof that is was a mistake, so I'm a little confused by this statement.

Without going back to check what I said, I doubt I said it just the way you did now. I am seldom that careless with my wording. I cannot PROVE it. I can provide evidence or may an argument that it was a mistake. Not enough is currently known by lay member to know if it was a mistake.

Unless someone is really interested, I won’t go into it, but the case would go something like this:

-Blacks were welcomed into the Church initially.

-Joseph Smith ordained blacks to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

-Then the Church faced big trouble from violent pro-slavery forces.

-The Church backed off it welcome of blacks and took a more neutral stance.

-Brigham Young was a racists by modern standards though his view were typical of the era.

-Brigham Young banned blacks from having the priesthood.

-Brigham Young was wrong about the timing of when blacks would have the priesthood.

-There is little or no scriptural evidence to support the the ban for black Africans.

-Even if Cain or Ham were cursed, we in the Church believe that we are not responsible for our forebearers sins and so a curse on Cain would not cause his offspring to be punished for his error.

-... and so on.

And until an apology is issued, we can assume that there is no need for one because the teachings of BY were not those of man, but of the Lord.

You would do well, Snow, to take the advice given in the very quote you posted by Elder McConkie:

I know you are not saying that with a straight face since I accept what Elder McConkie says about mistakes of the past while you ignore him.

Tell you what. I am meeting with the Elder Quorum Presidency tonight. I am going to put it to them simply about what BY said in 1854 then remind them of what happened in 1978. Then I’ll ask them what’s the deal. I bet that they answer, so what. BY was mistaken. Tops - it will be a 90 second discussion. This one is just too simple.

[Snow]

Originally posted by pushka@Sep 6 2005, 06:35 PM

I'd just like to make it clear that someone, at least, is reading this thread and agrees with Snow's remarks...I do.

←

Thanks pushka

[daizymae]

Originally posted by snow

Tell you what. I am meeting with the Elder Quorum Presidency tonight. I am going to put it to them simply about what BY said in 1854 then remind them of what happened in 1978. Then I’ll ask them what’s the deal. I bet that they answer, so what. BY was mistaken. Tops - it will be a 90 second discussion. This one is just too simple.

And you expect me to just go along with that....after you've told me that my stake presidency counselor father-in-law doesn't know what he's talking about? In your words Snow, humbug!

You may think that my father-in-law makes fallacious statements, but I doubt you would say that (not with a straight face anyway) about any of these statements:

"If you will listen to the living prophet and the apostles and heed our counsel, you will not go astray..." (M. Russell Ballard, “Special Witness: Our Living Prophet,” Friend, May 2003, 7)

“There is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.” (L. Aldin Porter, “Divine Direction,” New Era, Apr. 1998, 46)

“I want to give you my assurance, my dear friends, the Church will not be led astray nor will its people be led astray. The Lord has said that He has set up His work for the last time. This is the great winding-up period, as it were. The Lord is guiding this Church.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Words of the Living Prophet,” Liahona, Oct. 1997, 14)

"Some may wonder at such power and authority being vested in one man. “Could he not lead us astray?” they ask. President Wilford Woodruff once said, “I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” (A. Theodore Tuttle, “What Is a Living Prophet?” Ensign, July 1973, 18)

"Though his prophet is mortal, God will not let him lead his church astray." (Ezra Taft Benson, “Jesus Christ: Gifts and Expectations, Tambuli, May 1977, 20)

Do you want more? I can go on. The plain and simple truth here is that you believe that BY led the saints astray--away from the path the Lord intended--with what he taught. According to these statements, you are wrong. I'm sure you'll try to be clever and twist them to prove your point somehow. Go right ahead. It's no longer worth my time to try to discuss this with you.

[Snow]

Originally posted by daizymae@Sep 7 2005, 07:54 PM

Do you want more?  I can go on.  The plain and simple truth here is that you believe that BY led the saints astray--away from the path the Lord intended--with what he taught.  According to these statements, you are wrong.  I'm sure you'll try to be clever and twist them to prove your point somehow.  Go right ahead.  It's no longer worth my time to try to discuss this with you.

←

I don't have to twist anything. The issue is clear. Prophets make mistakes. BY made one such mistake. It cannot be denied. If you define "led astray" to include those kind of mistakes, then prophets lead astray. If you define lead astray to mean that God will not permit prophets to be fundamentally mistaken in a way that jeopordizes our salvation, then I agree, we don't get led astray.

Besides, those kind of quotes don't work with me. I am an independent thinker, I don't believe it just because someone, even a prophet said so. I take things, study them, test them against the facts, subject them to the test of logic, pray about them and ponder them. Those kind of statements might work better for someone who lets others do the thinking for them.

This is the kind of thing that appeals to the thinking man:

President Joseph F. Smith said, "We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never." (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248)

Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared: "President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill." (Millennial Star 54:191)

"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

Brigham Young said:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

"How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves." (JD 4:368)

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (JD 3:45)

"...Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer." (JD 1:312)

George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: "Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;" (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)

[Snow]

I know it long but I think every member should know what President Hugh B. Brown had to say:

here seems today to be a tendency toward flippant thinking, a lack of thought. There seems to be a tendency to belittle what our fathers and mothers thought because we feel we have made some progress scientifically. We are too ready to conclude that everything from past generations is now folly and that our main duty today, as far as the past is concerned, is to get away from it. There is not enough of the attitude of the sincere investigator among us. When we come into a new field of research that will challenge our due and honest consideration, we should be warned against coming too quickly to a conclusion, of forming a decision too hastily. We should be scientific -- that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in. Some say that the open-minded leave room for doubt. But I believe we should doubt some of the things we hear. Doubt has a place if it can stir in one an interest to go out and find the truth for one's self.

I should like to awaken in everyone a desire to investigate, to make an independent study of religion, and to know for themselves whether or not the teachings of the Mormon church are true. I should like to see everyone prepared to defend the religion of his or her parents, not because it was the religion of our fathers and mothers but because they have found it to be the true religion. If one approaches it with an open mind, with a desire to know the truth, and if one questions with a sincere heart what one hears from time to time, he or she will be on the road to growth and service. There are altogether too many people in the world who are willing to accept as true whatever is printed in a book or delivered from a pulpit. Their faith never goes below the surface soil of authority. I plead with everyone I meet that they may drive their faith down through that soil and get hold of the solid truth, that they may be able to withstand the winds and storm of indecision and of doubt, of opposition and persecution. Then, and only then, will we be able to defend our religion successfully. When I speak of defending our religion, I do not mean such defense as an army makes on the battlefield but the defense of a clean and upright and virtuous life lived in harmony with an intelligent belief and understanding of the gospel.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has this practical view of religion: that religion should help us here and now; that we should not have to wait until after we are dead to get any benefits; that religion as understood and applied makes men and women more successful, happier, more contented, gives them aspiration and hope; that religion is the vitalizing force, religion is that which gives men and women an ideal, an ideal so high that it may be seen from both sides of the valley of life.

The religion of the Latter-day Saints teaches youth that as children of God, they are expected to acquire experience as they go through life and that experience will ripen into knowledge, that knowledge will ripen into wisdom and intelligence, and that their greatness will be in proportion to their intelligence. So the religion of the Latter-day Saints is not just theory from a book or taught in church. The gospel is a plan of which God is the author, a plan of which we are all necessary parts. My religion sweetens my life. My religion, if properly lived, helps me to be a better friend to my associates, a better neighbor, a better citizen, a better father, a better man. If I am sincere in it, my religion forbids me to do to my neighbors what I would not want them to do to me, either in word or act. My religion, in other words, is that which is the greatest part of me.

I have been very grateful that the freedom, dignity, and integrity of the individual are basic in church doctrine. We are free to think and express our opinions in the church. Fear will not stifle thought. God himself refuses to trammel free agency even though its exercise sometimes teaches painful lessons. Both creative science and revealed religion find their fullest and truest expression in the climate of freedom.

As we all proceed to make our individual "declarations of independence," I hope we can distinguish between liberty and license, that we can realize that freedom is only a blessing if it is accompanied by wisdom and intelligence. At the same time, we all need to resist the down-drag of mental laziness which sometimes leads to the premature hardening of the intellectual arteries. And I would especially urge all of us to avoid sluggishness of spirit, which is the worst kind of lethargy. Some people are phlegmatic to a degree that would make a turtle seem intolerably vivacious. I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent -- if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.

Both science and religion beget humility. Scientists and teachers of religion disagree among themselves on theological and other subjects. Even in our own church men and women take issue with one another and contend for their own interpretations. This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration.

We should be dauntless in our pursuit of truth and resist all demands for unthinking conformity. No one would have us become mere tape recorders of other people's thoughts. We should be modest and teachable and seek to know the truth by study and faith. There have been times when progress was halted by thought control. Tolerance and truth demand that all be heard and that competing ideas be tested against each other so that the best, which might not always be our own, can prevail.

Knowledge is the most complete and dependable when all points of view are heard. We are in a world of restlessness and skepticism, where old things are not only challenged but often disappear, but also a world of miraculous achievement, undreamed of accomplishment, and terrifying power. Science offers wonderful tools for helping to create the brotherhood of humanity on earth, but the cement of brotherhood does not come from any laboratory. It must come from the heart and mind and spirit of men and women.

We should continue to become acquainted with human experience through history and philosophy, science and poetry, art and religion... One of the most important things in the world is freedom of the mind; from this all other freedoms spring. Such freedom is necessarily dangerous, for one cannot think right without running the risk of thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote for the evils that spring from wrong thinking. More thinking is required, and we should all exercise our God-given right to think and be unafraid to express our opinions, with proper respect for those to whom we talk and proper acknowledgment of our own shortcomings.

We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it. The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything. In this age of speed there seems to be little time for meditation.

And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within... (From An Abundant Life)