Investigator Needs Help

[Lindy]

Originally posted by Maureen@Aug 31 2005, 04:22 PM

I thought that Mahonri Moriancumer was the brother of Jared and that TBOJ was preferred because it was easier and faster to say than Mahonri Moriancumer.

M.

←

Thanks for the insight there Maureen :)

I looked it up...and bamm there it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahonri_Moriancumer

so does that make Jared's name Moriancumer too?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Laureltree@ August 31, 2005, 09:56 AM

To tell someone not to become a member because they don't have a full fledged testimony is garbage....  I didn't have one when I joined, I wanted one...but I didn't have one. I think if your heart is in the right place with a real intent to know I don't feel there is any problem...If we went on that rule over half of our members would still not be members...

I never said a person needs to have a "full fledged testimony" before becoming a member of the Church, at least not in the sense you may be thinking.

I think a lot of members have a testimony without realizing they have one, often because they think a testimony is always a so-super-powerful-you-definitely-know-it type of experience.

For instance, I think many of Helaman’s 2000 stripling warriors didn’t realize they had a testimony, although they did not doubt their mothers knew what they had taught them.

And I think a lot of people who go to Church meetings think they are going only because they have been told they should go, without realizing they wouldn’t be going if they didn’t know they are getting something out of it.

And for another example, you said this...

Let's get real here. We already know things happen in there own time, for there own reason....and we cannot change it, but it doesn't mean we should stop our growth, for some it takes taking that step into baptism to push themselves to search for more. And through faith, baptism, and repentance our eyes will be opened and the gift of holy ghost will be given to us, and from there we will receive guidance. Sometimes that step come way before a testimony......

...without realizing that “faith” IS a testimony, and without that “belief” or “desire to believe” you would never ever get one.

So, Laureltree, although you may not know it, you did have a testimony when joined the Church, and I know that because I heard you when you just said you wanted one, and the Holy Spirit bore witness to me that you did.

And btw, those half of the members who you think wouldn’t be members without a testimony already have a testimony too... even though they may not know it and even though it isn’t as fully developed as the testimony some other members have.

[seamusz]

Originally posted by Snow+Aug 31 2005, 06:46 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-daizymae@Aug 31 2005, 07:14 AM

 

 

You might disagree Snow, but I believe that God WILL NOT allow the prophet of his church to lead the members astray. 

←

 

Here's the problem with your belief... It is factually wrong. Prophets, when they speak on matters of policy and doctrine and the gospel are leading. Prophets say things that sometimes turn out to be wrong. Therefore, if the people believe them, they lead people astray.

In order for your belief to become true, you have to define "lead astray" to be a qualified "led astray, " as in, not lead astray much, or not lead astray in any foundational truth necessary for the salvation of man and remdemption of the Saints... something like that.

It is not my desire to beat up on God's chosen so I won't enumerate all the times (that I am aware of) when they have been wrong, save one example simply to prove the point. Brigham Young taught that blacks would not receive the priesthood until all non-blacks had received it. The evidence that his mistake had the effect of leading us astray is found in the fact that many, many in the Church, both lay members and leadership believed him - mistakenly. As you know, not all leaders believed him and finally Spencer Kimball corrected the mistake and led us back to the truth, but make no mistake - we, those that believed Brigham Young, were led astray.

[Here are the references: Statement by the First Presidency given on August 17, 1951. "The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, 'Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father's rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to.'"

On December 3, 1854, Brigham Young said, "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity" (Journal of Discourses 2:143).

President Wilford Woodruff noted in his journal that President Young said, "...that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood, until the time of that redemption" (History of Wilford Woodruff, p.351, as printed in The Way to Perfection, p.106).]

←

How was President Young leading people astray? He was speaking on the topic as he understood it, as it had been revealed to him. That is all, nothing more, nothing less.

The statements of Brigham Young are not in discord with The statements here. People who wish to find fault with the prophets and leaders will always do so. However those who chose to follow and support their leaders and the prophets will reap eternal blessing that cannot otherwise be obtained.

[Ray]

Snow said himself that it depends upon how you define “leading astray”, so I say that if you say

“the Prophets of the Church will never lead members of the Church astray” means

“the Prophets of the Church will never lead members of the Church to make mistakes”, then

no Prophet of the Church has ever led any member of the Church astray because

they have all told us we should always seek a confirmation from our Lord to assure us of the truth while keeping His commandments to the best of our knowledge. And in the end, keeping His commandments is what will matter most.

[Snow]

Originally posted by seamusz@Sep 1 2005, 10:58 AM

 

How was President Young leading people astray?  He was speaking on the topic as he understood it, as it had been revealed to him.  That is all, nothing more, nothing less.

I'll speak slowly... it doesn't matter if he spoke as he understood. The issue is leading. When a leader leads you by teaching something in error, he is leading "astray." No one said he didn't believe what he taught. It took the Church years to correct his error. It took Spencer Kimball decades to get all the other Brethren on board. Most of Spencer Kimballs predecessors never even inquired of the Lord what to do on the issue because they believed what BY had mistakenly taught.

To be sure, the LDS Church was no more racist than all the other white churches in the country. We were just more conspicuous because we had an overt written ban whereas other churches has a mostly unspoken and so hidden ban on blacks in the clergy. For other Churches, that ended or began to end with the civil rights movement. The LDS Church however was about a decade slower than other "uninspired" churches. We would have been before, not after other Churchs had earlier prophets prayed for guidance instead of relying on what BY, the leader of the ban, taught.

The statements of Brigham Young are not in discord with The statements here.

Obviously you haven't read what's at your link. The official declaration grants the priesthood to worthy black members. Brigham Young taught that such would not happen till all the white guys (actually non-African) got the Priesthood. Since non-Africans are still now getting the priesthood that means that not all of them had prior to the blacks getting it as BY had mistakenly taught.

Your link proved my point, not yours.

People who wish to find fault with the prophets and leaders will always do so.  However those who chose to follow and support their leaders and the prophets will reap eternal blessing that cannot otherwise be obtained.

←

That didn't even make sense; like 'people who went to see Indiana Jones Temple of Doom, will always do so. However, those who choose to be true will go to heaven.'

Humbug.

I am pointing out some points of history because understanding how things came to be the way they are helps us 1. know the truth, 2. make better decisions not. It's a false act of self-righteousness to imply that those who know history and comment on it are choosing to not go to heaven. Going to heaven is a matter of accepting Christ, and following him, not a function of keeping mum on history.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Sep 1 2005, 02:06 PM

Snow said himself that it depends upon how you define “leading astray”, so I say that if you say

“the Prophets of the Church will never lead members of the Church astray” means

“the Prophets of the Church will never lead members of the Church to make mistakes”, then

no Prophet of the Church has ever led any member of the Church astray because

they have all told us we should always seek a confirmation from our Lord to assure us of the truth while keeping His commandments to the best of our knowledge.  And in the end, keeping His commandments is what will matter most.

←

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

Remember that not all of us are as in-tune with the Spirit as you so that we believe that God actually reveals to us that 5x5=25 or that we actually attended highschool - which is what you literally believe that God does for you.

[daizymae]

Originally posted by Snow@Aug 30 2005, 09:48 PM

Let me illuminate your reasoning...

Your opinion is right because you say it is right.

I am underwelmed.

←

Right back at-cha man!

[Ray]

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

If you have a point to make, it would help other people to understand your point if you would be kind enough to explain how you arrived at your point, without making snide remarks. Or in other words, it would help if you explained what you were thinking when you made the statement I have just quoted, instead of thinking that all of us are going to get your point after reading your snide remark. Or in other words, what did Brigham Young ask someone to obey?

As I understand this issue, Brigham Young simply didn’t authorize priesthood holders to give the priesthood to black Africans, and the reason he didn’t authorize “that” is because he didn’t think he should, and all the reasons he didn’t think he should can be summarized by saying that the Lord did not reveal to him that he should authorize other priesthood holders to give the priesthood to black Africans. And as I hope you know, Brigham Young had a remarkable understanding of the scriptures, so I think it’s worth noticing that he didn’t think he should give the priesthood to black Africans despite all of the knowledge and understanding he had.

Remember that not all of us are as in-tune with the Spirit as you so that we believe that God actually reveals to us that 5x5=25 or that we actually attended highschool - which is what you literally believe that God does for you.

Yes, that is what God does for me, and for all of us, despite the fact that some people can not see that. And while I can see that the “light hasn’t come on” for you yet regarding this issue, I have great hope that it will at some point in the future.

And what the hey, just in case I might be able to help you, I’ll have another crack at trying to explain to you how all of this works.

Have you ever noticed how some people can’t understand something they read even when the words are right in front of their face, even when those words are in a language they can understand, and even when those words have been in front of their face for a very long time? And then when they finally understand the words, they make an expression like: “AHH, I see now!”, or “OH, I get it!” ?

Have you ever seen that?

Well, what do you think has just happened at a moment like that?

And btw, I’ve asked you this question before and the only answer you’ve given me so far is that you think they’ve only been using their “brain”, and as I’ve tried to tell you, our brain is not what let’s us know anything, because even with a brain, you could be DEAD.

Or in other words, when you die, or in other words, when your spirit leaves your physical body, you will still know what you know despite no longer having your brain, and you will still be able to learn because the knowledge you acquire has never been controlled by your brain. But without your spirit communicating with the Spirit of God, you would never learn anything worth knowing.

AHH, what a work is Man!

[Guest Member_Deleted]

If you have a point to make, it would help other people to understand your point if you would be kind enough to explain how you arrived at your point, without making snide remarks. Or in other words, it would help if you explained what you were thinking when you made the statement I have just quoted, instead of thinking that all of us are going to get your point after reading your snide remark.

Ray, you have hit the nail on the head here when you described the games Snow plays.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Please@Sep 2 2005, 01:36 PM

If you have a point to make, it would help other people to understand your point if you would be kind enough to explain how you arrived at your point, without making snide remarks. Or in other words, it would help if you explained what you were thinking when you made the statement I have just quoted, instead of thinking that all of us are going to get your point after reading your snide remark.

Ray, you have hit the nail on the head here when you described the games Snow plays.

←

eh, Heres the thing.

Snow isn't playing a game, or at least not the way he sees it. What you are witnessing when you see Snow make remarks like that, is the way Snow IS.

And yes, if you can't tell, I like "Monk". :)

[seamusz]

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 1 2005, 07:02 PM

 

I'll speak slowly... it doesn't matter if he spoke as he understood. The issue is leading. When a leader leads you by teaching something in error, he is leading "astray." No one said he didn't believe what he taught. It took the Church years to correct his error. It took Spencer Kimball decades to get all the other Brethren on board. Most of Spencer Kimballs predecessors never even inquired of the Lord what to do on the issue because they believed what BY had mistakenly taught. 

 

To be sure, the LDS Church was no more racist than all the other white churches in the country. We were just more conspicuous because we had an overt written ban whereas other churches has a mostly unspoken and so hidden ban on blacks in the clergy. For other Churches, that ended or began to end with the civil rights movement. The LDS Church however was about a decade slower than other "uninspired" churches. We would have been before, not after other Churchs had earlier prophets prayed for guidance instead of relying on what BY, the leader of the ban,  taught.

Ok, I hear what you're saying... I don't think that you are listening to me though. I don't think that the position of the church has ever been that it was incorrect to not allow African Americans the priesthood, much like Poligamy isn't considered to have been incorrect. The Lord spoke to the prophet when change was necessary and appropriate. You are interpreting Pres. Youngs statements pretty freely. I doubt that you are correct. And btw, how do you know which of the prophets did and didn't go to the Lord about the policy regarding the priesthood? You are completely out of line to speak for The Prophets of The Lord.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Snow")</div>

 

 

Obviously you haven't read what's at your link. The official declaration grants the priesthood to worthy black members. Brigham Young taught that such would not happen till all the white guys (actually non-African) got the Priesthood. Since non-Africans are still now getting the priesthood that means that not all of them had prior to the blacks getting it as BY had mistakenly taught. 

 

Your link proved my point, not yours.

Obviously you haven't read the scriptures if you think that the Lord hasn't changed his instructions to fit the times. If you have read the scriptures, then you surely haven't understood them, because they testify of the way the Lord helps His church grow and develop.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Snow")</div>

 

 

That didn't even make sense; like 'people who went to see Indiana Jones Temple of Doom, will always do so. However, those who choose to be true will go to heaven.' 

 

Humbug. 

 

I am pointing out some points of history because understanding how things came to be the way they are helps us 1. know the truth, 2. make better decisions not. It's a false act of self-righteousness to imply that those who know history and comment on it are choosing to not go to heaven. Going to heaven is a matter of accepting Christ, and following him, not a function of keeping mum on history. 

←

 

Ok, then it is my turn to speak slowly. If someone wants to find fault with a Prophet, they will find something that they consider to be a fault and will use that fault to achieve their own purpose. The Pharisees and Sadussees continually found fault with the Savior, where there was no fault to be found. If you are set on finding examples where you think that the church was led astray by a leader, you will find it. Not because its there, but because you are so intent on finding something, that you will create fault where non exist.

Now, no prophet has ever claimed to be beyond error, and this is necessary to take into account when studying the prophets lives, but we must have faith in these men as prophets, as they truly do speak with our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and are directly instructed by them. I know this is true.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Now, no prophet has ever claimed to be beyond error, and this is necessary to take into account when studying the prophets lives, but we must have faith in these men as prophets, as they truly do speak with our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and are directly instructed by them.  I know this is true.

←

I totally agree. I just have questions for those who question the prophet.

I don't know if anyone on the planet could tell us if the premise of the biblical teachings that the african couldn't hold the priesthood until Able's children received it, has been full filled.

Do we know if Able had children? Do we know if he didn't? Do we know if his posterity received the priesthood?

I think that they must have or there would not be priesthood for the african yet today.

Also, it isn't for anyone to question. Who of you are wiser and claim to be the prophet and have millions and millions of people who have received a positive confirmation in righteousness that you are a prophet? The true prophet has millions and millions who know by righteous means that the prophet speaks and works through Christ.

And who can say, that Christ has to do anything according to your understanding?

[Snow]

=Ray,Sep 2 2005, 08:54 AM]

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

If you have a point to make, it would help other people to understand your point if you would be kind enough to explain how you arrived at your point, without making snide remarks

There is nothing hidden in my snide remark. It is self-evident' in spite of which, I'll explain it. You stated that Brigham Young couldn't lead people astray because it was up to the members to pray for confirmation and thus the onus was on them, not BY for any false teachings he might of taught. At least that was half of what you claimed but the second part was equally invalid which I explain in a moment.

That the receiver of false teaching is responsible for them far from a satisfactory response. In fact if violates the topic of our discussion - that the prophet won't lead the saints astray. If a prophet won't lead you astray, then the members need to confirm the teaching via the spirit is incidental at best. Aren't we told "follow the prophet?" Don't we teach it to our children? Don't we sing it over and over? I agree that each member needs their own testimony but that does absolutely nothing to absolve the teacher of false doctrines from the mistake of teaching them. They retain 100% responsiblity for what they teach. Your attempt to blame the students instead of the teacher misses the entire point that prophets won't lead you astray.

The second part of your argument doesn't even make sense - that "leading astray" only refers to teachings that induce members to make mistakes as if BY false teaching vis a vis the end of the ban on priesthood didn't induce any mistakes. Of course it caused people to make mistakes. 1. It caused people to believe the wrong thing. That's a mistake. 2. It caused a delay in the end of the ban (if indeed there ever should have been a ban - a point I have yet to argue, but can). That is also a mistake. Had the Brethern not relied on BY's incorrect teaching, the ban would have been removed much earlier - and yes I can defend that statement.

Of course everything I just explained was unnecessary as my "snide remark" was self-explanatory.

Or in other words, it would help if you explained what you were thinking when you made the statement I have just quoted, instead of thinking that all of us are going to get your point after reading your snide remark.  Or in other words, what did Brigham Young ask someone to obey?

Are you for real Ray?

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.

2. Number 1 notwithstanding, The entire priesthood organization was compelled to "obey" Brigham Young's policy of withholding the priesthood from the blacks. To disobey it would have likely resulted in excommunication. Had it not been for such obedience, blacks would have gotten the priesthood decades earlier if not from the very beginning.

This too is self-evident. I do not know why you need an explanation.

As I understand this issue, Brigham Young simply didn’t authorize priesthood holders to give the priesthood to black Africans, and the reason he didn’t authorize “that” is because he didn’t think he should...

That's a word game Ray... saying "didn't authorize" instead of "forbade" or created the policy that banned blacks from hold the priesthood." Joseph Smith ordained blacks to the priesthood. It is not that BY didn't authorize.. he actually changed the practice.

and all the reasons he didn’t think he should can be summarized by saying that the Lord did not reveal to him that he should authorize other priesthood holders to give the priesthood to black Africans.

That's you talking. You do not know the reasons. The record is mostly silent on the matter and what we have is speculation on what the reasons might have been. You have a habit of doing that Ray... speaking for God, speaking for Christ, speaking for BY.

And as I hope you know, Brigham Young had a remarkable understanding of the scriptures, so I think it’s worth noticing that he didn’t think he should give the priesthood to black Africans despite all of the knowledge and understanding he had.

Here's put up or shutup time. 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.

Remember that not all of us are as in-tune with the Spirit as you so that we believe that God actually reveals to us that 5x5=25 or that we actually attended highschool - which is what you literally believe that God does for you.

Yes, that is what God does for me, and for all of us, despite the fact that some people can not see that. And while I can see that the “light hasn’t come on” for you yet regarding this issue, I have great hope that it will at some point in the future.

Frankly, I think that's a crock. 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.

1. The idea is silly. 5x5 equals 25 and no amount of praying for confirmation makes the answer any more certain.

2. I read what you write and nothing about it indicates that you have any special insight or spirit of light and truth. Ray - I think that your heart is in the right place, probably more so than many or most posters around. You are to be commended for it. However, you thinking skills are weak and hazy. If you were in true communion with the spirit, your thinking skills would be better.

And what the hey, just in case I might be able to help you, I’ll have another crack at trying to explain to you how all of this works.

Have you ever noticed how some people can’t understand something they read even when the words are right in front of their face, even when those words are in a language they can understand, and even when those words have been in front of their face for a very long time?  And then when they finally understand the words, they make an expression like: “AHH, I see now!”, or “OH, I get it!” ?

Have you ever seen that?

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

[Snow]

Originally posted by Please@Sep 2 2005, 12:36 PM

Ray, you have hit the nail on the head here when you described the games Snow plays.

←

If you think you can rebut my position - go ahead. I am capable of learning.

[Snow]

Originally posted by seamusz+Sep 2 2005, 03:43 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Sep 1 2005, 07:02 PM

  

I'll speak slowly... it doesn't matter if he spoke as he understood. The issue is leading. When a leader leads you by teaching something in error, he is leading "astray." No one said he didn't believe what he taught. It took the Church years to correct his error. It took Spencer Kimball decades to get all the other Brethren on board. Most of Spencer Kimballs predecessors never even inquired of the Lord what to do on the issue because they believed what BY had mistakenly taught.  

  

To be sure, the LDS Church was no more racist than all the other white churches in the country. We were just more conspicuous because we had an overt written ban whereas other churches has a mostly unspoken and so hidden ban on blacks in the clergy. For other Churches, that ended or began to end with the civil rights movement. The LDS Church however was about a decade slower than other "uninspired" churches. We would have been before, not after other Churchs had earlier prophets prayed for guidance instead of relying on what BY, the leader of the ban,  taught.

Ok, I hear what you're saying... I don't think that you are listening to me though. I don't think that the position of the church has ever been that it was incorrect to not allow African Americans the priesthood, much like Poligamy isn't considered to have been incorrect. The Lord spoke to the prophet when change was necessary and appropriate. You are interpreting Pres. Youngs statements pretty freely. I doubt that you are correct. And bad, how do you know which of the prophets did and didn't go to the Lord about the policy regarding the priesthood? You are completely out of line to speak for The Prophets of The Lord.

Thanks for taking time to read and to explain.

I agree that the Church has never taught that the ban was incorrect. But the question at hand is not the ban, but rather the timing of the end of the ban. BY taught one thing (that it would only end after all non-blacks had received it) and it acutal practice that turned out to be wrong. Blacks got it in 1978. By the way, the time might come when the Church apologizes and says it was wrong to even make the ban. Such a proposal was working its way through the ranks of the Brethren about 6 years ago and almost got, officially, to the level of the 1st Presidency before the plug got pulled. The plug got pulled, not because an apology was wrong, but because someone on the committee thought they could put pressure on the Brethren by going public to the LA Times. The Brethren do not respond to public pressure and so the project was shelved. Who knows, it could well resurface when the pressure is off. Certainly many blacks do not accept the gospel because of prior racists teaching of the Church.

Here's an example of one such racist teaching. In a church manual (within the last 5 years) a BYU professor noticed a quote from a turn of the century (1900) General Authority that said something to the effect that blacks were on the earth so that Satan would have representatives on earth during the latter days. The professor contacted the author of the CES (Church Educational System) manual who basically blew her off. She told Darius Grey who had been called to be President of the Church's Genesis Group by the Prophet. He simply called President Hinckley who personally intervened to fix it. This story was told to me personally by the two people involved, Margaret Blair Young and Darius Gray. Whatever lingering racism exists in the Church is found mainly in the CES and some hick and ignorant members.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Snow")

  

  

Obviously you haven't read what's at your link. The official declaration grants the priesthood to worthy black members. Brigham Young taught that such would not happen till all the white guys (actually non-African) got the Priesthood. Since non-Africans are still now getting the priesthood that means that not all of them had prior to the blacks getting it as BY had mistakenly taught.  

  

Your link proved my point, not yours.

Obviously you haven't read the scriptures if you think that the Lord hasn't changed his instructions to fit the times. If you have read the scriptures, then you surely haven't understood them, because they testify of the way the Lord helps His church grow and develop.

Again, the point is not that the policy was changed but BY was wrong and leading people astray when he taught them that the ban would not end until after all non-blacks had the priesthood.

And BTW, that is only one example of the times when prophets have been wrong.

Ok, then it is my turn to speak slowly.  If someone wants to find fault with a Prophet, they will find something that they consider to be a fault and will use that fault to achieve their own purpose.  The Pharisees and Sadussees continually found fault with the Savior, where there was no fault to be found.  If you are set on finding examples where you think that the church was led astray by a leader, you will find it.  Not because its there, but because you are so intent on finding something, that you will create fault where non exist. 

 

Now, no prophet has ever claimed to be beyond error, and this is necessary to take into account when studying the prophets lives, but we must have faith in these men as prophets, as they truly do speak with our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and are directly instructed by them.  I know this is true.

←

Well, fine, I agree with that for the most part, but the comments about finding fault were directed at me and inappropriately so since my critiques are not for the purpose of finding faulth but rather for the purposes of 1. Arguing a point - argument being my favored tool for learing, 2. Getting to the truth as an important part of putting things into proper context.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 2 2005, 07:00 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Sep 2 2005, 12:36 PM

Ray, you have hit the nail on the head here when you described the games Snow plays.

←

If you think you can rebut my position - go ahead. I am capable of learning.

←

Learn this then, there is no decent answer to snide remarks, and there is no decent intelligence in snide remarks to respond to.

[daizymae]

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 2 2005, 08:01 PM

By the way, the time might come when the Church apologizes and says it was wrong to even make the ban. Such a proposal was working its way through the ranks of the Brethren about 6 years ago and almost got, officially, to the level of the 1st Presidency before the plug got pulled. The plug got pulled, not because an apology was wrong, but because someone on  the committee thought they could put pressure on the Brethren by going public to the LA Times. The Brethren do not respond to public pressure and so the project was shelved. Who knows, it could well resurface when the pressure is off.

Whether or not this supposed proposal is just a Mormon urban legend or not, I don't know. Earlier, my husband and I were discussing this subject with my father-in-law, who currently serves in a Stake Presidency. He made a very powerful statement in regards to the idea of the church making an apology for something that some might consider to be a mistake. He said "Why would the first presidency apologize for the Lord?".

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were both reprimanded by the Lord for "smaller" things than blacks receiving the priesthood. If, in fact, Brigham Young's teachings on the matter were a mistake, the Lord would have corrected the mistake LONG before 1978.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a church of revelation. If you honestly believe it to be the true church, it would be impossible for you to believe that the Lord would allow his prophets to make such gross errors.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Well, fine, I agree with that for the most part, but the comments about finding fault were directed at me and inappropriately so since my critiques are not for the purpose of finding faulth but rather for the purposes of 1. Arguing a point - argument being my favored tool for learing, 2. Getting to the truth as an important part of putting things into proper context.

←

:unsure.dontknow: Your critiques? Is that what you call the posts you made to me? and they aren't for finding fault? LOL yeah right!

[Snow]

Originally posted by Please+Sep 2 2005, 08:34 PM-->

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 2 2005, 07:00 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Sep 2 2005, 12:36 PM

Ray, you have hit the nail on the head here when you described the games Snow plays.

←

If you think you can rebut my position - go ahead. I am capable of learning.

←

Learn this then, there is no decent answer to snide remarks, and there is no decent intelligence in snide remarks to respond to.

←

Well, here's the problem with that.

1. Snide remarks can and often are intelligent. They can have a way of hitting the nail exactly on the head. The key flaw with an earlier post of Ray's was that he blamed the students for the false teachings instead of the teacher for the false teachings. A snide retort to that captures the essence of the flaw in that kind of thinking - a lenghty explanation of the flaw in Ray's point was not necessary because most all of us have enough knowledge or experience to intuitively understand the flaw and so a quick bit of mocking is faster, more to the point, and even appropriate since Ray's blame of the student is so obviously silly.

2. You yourself use snide remarks when they suit you. For example, in response to a post of mine, you said: "Becoming ignorant so soon? "Prejudice is the child of ignorance." William Haslitt"

So, you are being hypocritical. You are snide yourself when it suits you but complain when others are snide so you have no moral authority on this issue. Additionally, you were being snide in response to a post of mine where I had correctly pointed out a weakness in the claim of a previous poster. Then you, out of the blue, mocked me by suggesting that I was ignorant and a bigot; both untrue and neither having anything to do with either my post or the post I replied to.

When I make a snide remark, it relates to something. Your insult was unrelated to anything - it would be as in the middle of the post I said "You wear too much polyester."

[Snow]

Originally posted by Please@Sep 2 2005, 08:41 PM

Well, fine, I agree with that for the most part, but the comments about finding fault were directed at me and inappropriately so since my critiques are not for the purpose of finding faulth but rather for the purposes of 1. Arguing a point - argument being my favored tool for learing, 2. Getting to the truth as an important part of putting things into proper context.

←

:unsure.dontknow: Your critiques? Is that what you call the posts you made to me? and they aren't for finding fault? LOL yeah right!

←

Please,

Please try to follow along. I was addressing Seamuz, not you, and I was talking about the claim or suggestion that I was simply a "fault-finder" in the General Authorities.

I just reviewed the whole thread and am puzzled by you taking offense. I've barely talked to you so don't really know what you are upset about. I critiqued one of your rebuttal posts by pointing out, correctly, that in support of your position you simply stated an opinion - no evidence, no logic, no nothing - just a statement of opinion and acted as if that was proof of something. That was hardly a criticism of you, just of you post. Then in my last post, after you complained of me criticizing you, I pointed out, correctly, the hipocrisy of your complaint against my snide remarks, but that was after, not before you complained of my criticism of you.

So really, I don't get why you're bent out of shape.

Why don't you point me to the post(s) that are offensive and wrong in their criticism, I'll review them and if you are correct I will edit them and apologize.

[Snow]

Originally posted by daizymae+Sep 2 2005, 08:40 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Sep 2 2005, 08:01 PM

By the way, the time might come when the Church apologizes and says it was wrong to even make the ban. Such a proposal was working its way through the ranks of the Brethren about 6 years ago and almost got, officially, to the level of the 1st Presidency before the plug got pulled. The plug got pulled, not because an apology was wrong, but because someone on  the committee thought they could put pressure on the Brethren by going public to the LA Times. The Brethren do not respond to public pressure and so the project was shelved. Who knows, it could well resurface when the pressure is off.

Whether or not this supposed proposal is just a Mormon urban legend or not, I don't know. Earlier, my husband and I were discussing this subject with my father-in-law, who currently serves in a Stake Presidency. He made a very powerful statement in regards to the idea of the church making an apology for something that some might consider to be a mistake. He said "Why would the first presidency apologize for the Lord?".

It's no urban myth. The LA Times article was dated May 18, 1998. It's available on the internet. The General Authority who was involved in the group that was working on the idea to present to the Brethren was Marlin K. Jensen, a President of the Seventy. Information is available on the web. I am using All Abraham's Children by Armand Mauss as a source but there are many others.

No offense to your Father in Law as I have great respect for the office the Stake Presidency holds and for the personal dedication of all who serve when called but his statement "Why would the first presidency apologize for the Lord?" is fallacious. It presupposes that it was the Lord who said the black Africans were cursed and could not hold the priesthood, when the whole point of an apology is that maybe it wasn't God who set the policy but rather Brigham Young or his own accord and by mistake. Since the apology was never issued we don't know what exactly it would apologize for but certainly not for the Lord. Your Father in Law missed the point entirely.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were both reprimanded by the Lord for "smaller" things than blacks receiving the priesthood.  If, in fact, Brigham Young's teachings on the matter were a mistake, the Lord would have corrected the mistake LONG before 1978.

Says who?

God CAN say anything he wants but who are we to say that He must say this or say that and what the timing needs be. Spencer Kimball worked out the ban removal over the course of decades of work and prayer and meditation and discussion with the Brethren. That's the way I think the Church works in general - we seperately and as an institution have to work out our own salvation with blood and sweat. I know that some - say Ray - think God reveals every single little thing, like the anwsers to math equations but the history of the Church shows that man has to work his behind off to figure things out for himself.

For example, in D & C 131 we are told that the Celestial Kingdom has 3 levels and that we cannot obtain the highest level without the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Up until about 1910, the Church interpreted that to mean plural marriage. So, you couldn't get all God's reward without being a polygamous spouse. Of course with the cessation of plural marriage, that became a stumbling block. The Church, largely through the persuasion of James Talmage, came to a new and better understanding that it referred to Temple marriage, not plural marriage.

Now - that particular point was a major importance. People's exaltation depended upon it but there was no direct reveleation fixing the error. The institutional Chruch had to work it out on it's own over decades and decades.

Besides Joseph Smith, how many times does the Church recognize direct revelation... you know... thus saith the Lord? Joseph Smith got revelation about line item stuff - who should sell his farm, what people should eat, etc. Besides that, there are extremely few official revelations that the Church recognizes. So, 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 - that God didn't reveal the answer until Spencer Kimball humbled himself and asked. And, by the way - some earlier prophets, as I understand it, refused to even ask and others - perhaps it didn't occur to them to question. They just accepted what BY taught - after all, BY was a prophet too so they have to start with the proppsition that BY knew what he was talking about.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a church of revelation.  If you honestly believe it to be the true church, it would be impossible for you to believe that the Lord would allow his prophets to make such gross errors.

←

Acutally, that is factually wrong. I do believe that the Church is a church of revelation. AND I do believe that we make gross errors. It seems natural to me that it may be God's way of chastising and humbling us - letting us make our own errors - as an institution.

Now, no one has argued it yet but can anyone find any support for the idea that there should have been a ban?

I say that there is no evidence that Brigham Young ever received a revelation on it and that the whole idea is unsupported by the scriptures and that it is in violation of the Articles of Fatih

[daizymae]

Originally posted by snow

...his statement "Why would the first presidency apologize for the Lord?" is fallacious. It presupposes that it was the Lord who said the black Africans were cursed and could not hold the priesthood...

If that's the case, then it could just as fairly be said that all of your statemes are fallacious as well, because you are presupposing that Brigham Young is the reason blacks didn't hold the preisthood until 1978.

Originally posted by snow

Acutally, that is factually wrong. I do believe that the Church is a church of revelation. AND I do believe that we make gross errors. It seems natural to me that it may be God's way of chastising and humbling us - letting us make our own errors - as an institution.

WE make gross errors....the Lord's prophet does not. I was recently told an experience from a stake president who attended a solemn assembly with the prophet and quorum of the twelve. One of the twelve (I can remember for certain if it was Boyd K. Packer or Thomas S. Monson) made the statement that the only person on this earth without sin is the prophet, because the Lord would sooner remove a false prophet from the earth than let him lead the church astray (use your own interpretation of astray here....it doesn't really matter). To me, that says that the prophet does not make errors when it comes to leading the church.

Doesn't it all come down to the fact that whenever the prophet speaks, the Lord expects us to pray for our own confirmation that what has been said is true?

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 3 2005, 11:56 AM-->

Originally posted by Please@Sep 2 2005, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 2 2005, 07:00 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Sep 2 2005, 12:36 PM

Ray, you have hit the nail on the head here when you described the games Snow plays.

←

If you think you can rebut my position - go ahead. I am capable of learning.

←

Learn this then, there is no decent answer to snide remarks, and there is no decent intelligence in snide remarks to respond to.

←

Well, here's the problem with that.

1. Snide remarks can and often are intelligent. They can have a way of hitting the nail exactly on the head. The key flaw with an earlier post of Ray's was that he blamed the students for the false teachings instead of the teacher for the false teachings. A snide retort to that captures the essence of the flaw in that kind of thinking - a lenghty explanation of the flaw in Ray's point was not necessary because most all of us have enough knowledge or experience to intuitively understand the flaw and so a quick bit of mocking is faster, more to the point, and even appropriate since Ray's blame of the student is so obviously silly.

2. You yourself use snide remarks when they suit you. For example, in response to a post of mine, you said: "Becoming ignorant so soon? "Prejudice is the child of ignorance." William Haslitt"

So, you are being hypocritical. You are snide yourself when it suits you but complain when others are snide so you have no moral authority on this issue. Additionally, you were being snide in response to a post of mine where I had correctly pointed out a weakness in the claim of a previous poster. Then you, out of the blue, mocked me by suggesting that I was ignorant and a bigot; both untrue and neither having anything to do with either my post or the post I replied to.

When I make a snide remark, it relates to something. Your insult was unrelated to anything - it would be as in the middle of the post I said "You wear too much polyester."

←

I definitely use snide remarks but I certainly wouldn't call them intelligent. You do a pretty retarded dance trying to avoid admitting you are not putting forth much worth reading.

[Laureltree]

:signs.backtotopic:

[Snow]

Originally posted by daizymae+Sep 3 2005, 12:50 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-snow

...his statement "Why would the first presidency apologize for the Lord?" is fallacious. It presupposes that it was the Lord who said the black Africans were cursed and could not hold the priesthood...

If that's the case, then it could just as fairly be said that all of your statemes are fallacious as well, because you are presupposing that Brigham Young is the reason blacks didn't hold the preisthood until 1978.

Have you not understood even the most simple foundation of this discussion?

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. What part of that don't you get? Seriously, what part?

But, even if your statement about it being my presupposition were germane to the topic, you would still be wrong because Brigham Young was the reason, post Joseph Smith that is (because Joseph Smith ordained blacks to the priesthood). It is all a matter of the historical record. You can read about it in history books and Church books, even the Ensign. It is not a disputed issue - by anybody in the entire world - except you apparently. The question is whether or not he was inspired to do so. I doubt you can provide one single bit of evidence that he was.

WE make gross errors....the Lord's prophet does not.  I was recently told an experience from a stake president who attended a solemn assembly with the prophet and quorum of the twelve.  One of the twelve (I can remember for certain if it was Boyd K. Packer or Thomas S. Monson) made the statement that the only person on this earth without sin is the prophet, because the Lord would sooner remove a false prophet from the earth than let him lead the church astray (use your own interpretation of astray here....it doesn't really matter).  To me, that says that the prophet does not make errors when it comes to leading the church.

Well I generally agree with that kind of thinking but the way you put it is problematic. First - certainly the prophet, or any man save Christ is NOT without sin. Second - Boyd K. Packer or Thomas Monson are entittled to have opinions. Their opinions may or may not be correct. For example: Brigham Young Jr, a member of the Quorum of the 12 and thus an apostle, prophet, seer and revelator was of the opinion that Word of Wisdom did not apply to Danish Beer. Of course his opinion differed from many other prophets and would keep him from getting a temple reccommend today. Another example: Joseph Smith taught that we ought not deliberately harm any living creature yet today, the Church owns and operates a for profit hunting refuge for sport. That would have bothered a number of former prophets but Gordon B. Hinckley disagrees. Another problem with your post is that prophets have made plenty of mistakes in leading the Church. It a matter of scripture. Joseph Smith certainly made his share of mistakes in leading the Church. Had you read his own History of the Church, you would know that. Some of the errors were serious. Some were illegal - did you know that? Some contributed to his death.

So, you can't say that prophets don't make mistakes in leading the Church - not with a straight face anyway. What you can say is that The gospel/church has been restored and will not be taken away so any mistakes that we or the general authorities make will not be seriously enough that our institutional salvation will be lost

Doesn't it all come down to the fact that whenever the prophet speaks, the Lord expects us to pray for our own confirmation that what has been said is true?

←

Agreed and good point. It's worth mentioning that even apostles have and do disagree on matters of doctrine and policy so praying for confirmation doesn't get everyone the same answer - not even the prophets and apostles.