Investigator Needs Help

[Snow]

Oh, and for whatever it's worth - I know I come across a wee bit unsocial. Nothing personal really - I am just responding to the posts.

[seamusz]

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

Besides, those kind of quotes don't work with me.

Well, if you will not accept these rather blunt statements of the Lord's anointed leaders, there is not much more to discuss.

Snow, your stance is perfectly fine, as long as you can accept that it is not in harmony with the teachings of the prophets, and as such, not in harmony with the Lord. You need to humble yourself enough to accept the words of the prophets and let go of your pride and "knowledge". I could not believe that you thought that your Elders Quorum Pres would somehow hold precedence over such a power statement made by a member of a stake presidency. Well, I am (well was, I was released about a month ago) an Elders Quorum president, and I can say that the statements of Daisymae are true, not only because they make sense, but because I feel the Spirit of the Lord when I read them, and I don't feel it when I read your retorts.

Let me tell you of the dangerousness of your stance. It is by finding fault in our leaders that leads down the road of apostasy.

But who am I kidding? Your mind is already made up because of the "reasoning" of your mind. And as such is closed to the workings of the spirit. My hope for you is that you can let go of the finite knowledge of your mind and are able to open it to the infinite wisdom of the teachings of the Lord though his prophets.

[Snow]

Originally posted by seamusz@Sep 8 2005, 06:40 AM

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

Besides, those kind of quotes don't work with me.

Well, if you will not accept these rather blunt statements of the Lord's anointed leaders, there is not much more to discuss.

Snow, your stance is perfectly fine, as long as you can accept that it is not in harmony with the teachings of the prophets, and as such, not in harmony with the Lord.

1. You don't speak for God.

2. Wrong - I am rightly entitled to a Temple Recommend. There is nothing in my opinions that preclude me from having one. No member is required to accept Brigham Young's mistakes nor believe what a man says just because he is a prophet.

3. I am in fine harmony with the quotes I posted from prophets, presidents and apostles but you seem to discount them entirely.

You need to humble yourself enough to accept the words of the prophets and let go of your pride and "knowledge".  I could not believe that you thought that your Elders Quorum Pres would somehow hold precedence over such a power statement made by a member of a stake presidency.

It just won't do for you to misrepresent what I said. That's dishonest and might put you out of harmony with God but that's between you and your maker. What I said or implied is that the EQ Presidency would easily understand the error and be able to reconcile it to the Church's veracity without missing a beat. Never did I even come close to suggesting that their thoughts took precedence over a Stake President... except obviously if there were under the impression that black got the priesthood in 1978, they would be right while BY was wrong.

I can assure you, however, that this EQ President would never fall into the same logical fallacy as the one "reportedly" made by the Stake President in question.

Well, I am (well was, I was released about a month ago) an Elders Quorum president, and I can say that the statements of Daisymae are true, not only because they make sense, but because I feel the Spirit of the Lord when I read them, and I don't feel it when I read your retorts.

So noted that you think that BY was inspired by God to be mistaken about blacks getting the priesthood when they did. Course that puts you in an undoctrinal postiion but so long as you feel the Spirt - hey, whatever.

And... don't you think that it is more likely that instead of getting a testimony from the Spirit about Daisy's posts, even though they are demonstably wrong, that what you are really feeling is some sympathy for someone who shares your opinion and is getting roughed up a bit by a sarcastic bully and some disdain for the rude agressor? Maybe - ya think?

Let me tell you of the dangerousness of your stance.  It is by finding fault in our leaders that leads down the road of apostasy.

Wrong. My obligation, as a Mormon is to accept truth. I can't accept error just cuz someone said to.

But who am I kidding?  Your mind is already made up because of the "reasoning" of your mind.

Wrong again. I can easily be persuaded by a reasonable or superior argument. However, not a single person has put up an argument. Ya'll only say, BY was right or BY was wrong by he was wrong by the Spirit of revelation. Neither of which is an answer that an educated and reasonable person would accept.

But by all means - if you have an argument, stop moaning and present it.

And as such is closed to the workings of the spirit.  My hope for you is that you can let go of the finite knowledge of your mind and are able to open it to the infinite wisdom of the teachings of the Lord though his prophets.

←

Like I said, you don't speak for God so you just sound silly when you try to tell me how the Spirit does this or does that. One thing I know for sure, or at least have solid faith in - the Spirit doesn't contract truth and reason is truth.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow

Wrong again. I can easily be persuaded by a reasonable or superior argument. However, not a single person has put up an argument. Ya'll only say, BY was right or BY was wrong by he was wrong by the Spirit of revelation. Neither of which is an answer that an educated and reasonable person would accept.

But by all means - if you have an argument, stop moaning and present it.

I presented my response to your thoughts and you have misunderstood my response if you think I said “Brigham Young was wrong because he was wrong by the Spirit of revelation”.

I said that Brigham Young didn’t receive revelation from the Lord telling him (or helping him to understand) that black Africans should hold the priesthood, and FYI, that is not the same thing as saying that he received revelation from the Lord telling him (or helping him to understand) that black Africans should not hold the priesthood.

And btw, you have been correct in thinking that a prophet is only a prophet when he receives revelation from the Lord, and that when he is only speaking as a man he can be wrong, but it is not right to think that Brigham Young led the Church astray when he shared his personal thoughts because he never claimed and the Church never accepted those thoughts as revelations from the Lord.

And for another FYI, all the revelations our Lord reveals to prophets who lead His Church are recorded as scripture soon after being accepted by the leading officers of the Church, and the fact that certain statements from Brigham Young were not recorded as scripture is evidence that the Church was not led astray by those statements from Brigham Young.

[seamusz]

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

Originally posted by seamusz@

Well, if you will not accept these rather blunt statements of the Lord's anointed leaders, there is not much more to discuss.   

   

Snow, your stance is perfectly fine, as long as you can accept that it is not in harmony with the teachings of the prophets, and as such, not in harmony with the Lord.

1. You don't speak for God.

2. Wrong - I am rightly entitled to a Temple Recommend. There is nothing in my opinions that preclude me from having one. No member is required to accept Brigham Young's mistakes nor believe what a man says just because he is a prophet.

3. I am in fine harmony with the quotes I posted from prophets, presidents and apostles but you seem to discount them entirely.

1. True, but the Prophets do.

2. Your recommend is between you, your Stake President, Bishop and the Lord. It is none of my business.

3. You cannot pick and choose which statements you are in harmony with. If that were the case I would be justified in practicing poligamy. You say that you are in harmony with the quotes you posted, however I am in harmony with all of the quotes posted.

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow

You need to humble yourself enough to accept the words of the prophets and let go of your pride and "knowledge".  I could not believe that you thought that your Elders Quorum Pres would somehow hold precedence over such a power statement made by a member of a stake presidency.

It just won't do for you to misrepresent what I said. That's dishonest and might put you out of harmony with God but that's between you and your maker. What I said or implied is that the EQ Presidency would easily understand the error and be able to reconcile it to the Church's veracity without missing a beat. Never did I even come close to suggesting that their thoughts took precedence over a Stake President... except obviously if there were under the impression that black got the priesthood in 1978, they would be right while BY was wrong.

I can assure you, however, that this EQ President would never fall into the same logical fallacy as the one "reportedly" made by the Stake President in question.

My mistake in misunderstanding you. Please explain to me then, why the info on you EQ Pres statement was pertinent at all?

Is that last line accusing Daizymae of lying?

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

Well, I am (well was, I was released about a month ago) an Elders Quorum president, and I can say that the statements of Daisymae are true, not only because they make sense, but because I feel the Spirit of the Lord when I read them, and I don't feel it when I read your retorts.

So noted that you think that BY was inspired by God to be mistaken about blacks getting the priesthood when they did. Course that puts you in an undoctrinal postiion but so long as you feel the Spirt - hey, whatever.

And... don't you think that it is more likely that instead of getting a testimony from the Spirit about Daisy's posts, even though they are demonstably wrong, that what you are really feeling is some sympathy for someone who shares your opinion and is getting roughed up a bit by a sarcastic bully and some disdain for the rude agressor? Maybe - ya think?

yeah Snow, you are a big bully . The statements of Daizy were in line with the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles, yours were not. So even though you were able to twist things to your purpose, I saw the truth fully defined by Daizy's statements, then that was confirmed by the spirit. Daizy can hold her own, I'm sure see isn't worried about you stealing her lunch money or anything.

Originally posted by Snow@

Let me tell you of the dangerousness of your stance.  It is by finding fault in our leaders that leads down the road of apostasy.

Wrong. My obligation, as a Mormon is to accept truth. I can't accept error just cuz someone said to.

I think you should set an appointment up with you Bishop and tell him of your stance. I'll bet you that he tries to convince you otherwise. And furthermore, I'll bet that if you tryed to teach this in a Sunday School class, or Quorum Meeting, you would be corrected. I would talk to the Bishop first, so as to avoid any awkward moments.

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow

But who am I kidding?  Your mind is already made up because of the "reasoning" of your mind.  And as such is closed to the workings of the spirit.  My hope for you is that you can let go of the finite knowledge of your mind and are able to open it to the infinite wisdom of the teachings of the Lord though his prophets.

Wrong again. I can easily be persuaded by a reasonable or superior argument. However, not a single person has put up an argument. Ya'll only say, BY was right or BY was wrong by he was wrong by the Spirit of revelation. Neither of which is an answer that an educated and reasonable person would accept.

But by all means - if you have an argument, stop moaning and present it.

Like I said, you don't speak for God so you just sound silly when you try to tell me how the Spirit does this or does that. One thing I know for sure, or at least have solid faith in - the Spirit doesn't contract truth and reason is truth.

Moaning.... how am I moaning? But anyway, I have to ask: Would you really change you position on this issue if I had a "superior argument"? I have difficulty believing this.

EDIT: Fixed the stupid quote tags

[Ray]

Off topic, but I’m really curious about why people think they need to explain why they use the Edit feature.

Is there a rule suggesting that we should avoid the Edit feature?

Anyway, as you may have noticed, I make good and frequent use of the Edit feature as I try to perfect my message, and I think a lot of people would perfect their message (and their thoughts) if they made good use the Edit feature too.

Anyway,

[daizymae]

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 7 2005, 11:29 PM

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)

←

All that these quotes do is back up the statement I made several pages ago, one that you agreed with:

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

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?

←

<!--QuoteBegin-snow

Agreed and good point.

←

[daizymae]

Originally posted by Ray@Sep 9 2005, 02:32 PM

Off topic, but I’m really curious about why people think they need to explain why they use the Edit feature. 

Is there a rule suggesting that we should avoid the Edit feature?

Anyway, as you may have noticed, I make good and frequent use of the Edit feature as I try to perfect my message, and I think a lot of people would perfect their message (and their thoughts) if they made good use the Edit feature too.

Anyway, 

←

Probably just to clarify that they haven't actually changed any of the original content of their post. I rarely explain if I made an edit right after submitting a post....but if I find a mistake much later than when I first posted, I usually just say I edited to fix spelling or something. I dunno....that's why I do it.

[seamusz]

Originally posted by daizymae+Sep 9 2005, 02:36 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Sep 9 2005, 02:32 PM

Off topic, but I’m really curious about why people think they need to explain why they use the Edit feature. 

Is there a rule suggesting that we should avoid the Edit feature?

Anyway, as you may have noticed, I make good and frequent use of the Edit feature as I try to perfect my message, and I think a lot of people would perfect their message (and their thoughts) if they made good use the Edit feature too.

Anyway, 

←

Probably just to clarify that they haven't actually changed any of the original content of their post. I rarely explain if I made an edit right after submitting a post....but if I find a mistake much later than when I first posted, I usually just say I edited to fix spelling or something. I dunno....that's why I do it.

←

Yeah, I don't want people to think that I'm mixing stuff around when I edit a mistake. That edit note was probably unnessesarry, but I thought it best to be clear.

[Snow]

seamusz,

>>>Yes prophets speak for God when they are speaking in harmony with the scriptures and or inspired to do so. Prophets may not be speaking for God when they are expressing personal opinions that are out of harmony with the gospel. For example: When John Taylor said on August 28, 1881, "And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" (Journal of Discourses 22:304), or when Mark E. Peterson said in his speech, Race Problems as They Affect the Church, "If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection.", clearly both Taylor and Peterson were not speaking for the Lord and were out of harmony with the gospel as we now understand it.

However, I do think that Brigham Young was in harmony with the Spirit when he 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)

and

"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)

After all, this is a church that values personal revelation over blind obedience.

>>>As for me being in harmony with the Lord - you, obviously, have no idea. All you can say is that I am out of what you consider to harmony. You are wholly unqualified to say anything more.

>>>You are completely wrong when you say that one cannot pick and choose which statements (of Church Authorities to agree with and to disagree with. I disagree completely with Brigham Young when he says that a white man that procreates with a black woman should be immediately killed. If you agree with Brigham Young that whites who marry blacks deserve death - then I charge that you are dangerously out of harmony with God - in my opinion, but then again, I think that God is no respecter of persons.

>>>About the question to the EQ Presidency... and I think it was obvious - the point being , as I already explained, that posing the question to an educated, rational and active Mormon, would, most usually get you the same response that I have been arguing for, which is... prophets are subject to error and this was an error.

>>>You are completely wrong when you say that Daisy's statements are in harmony with the prophets and mine are not.

Daisy's are in line with Brigham Young, John Taylor and Bruce R. McConkie prior to his admission of error. Mine are in line with Spencer W. Kimball, Howard Hunter, and Gordon B. Hinckley and Bruce McConkie after he admitted his and the prior leaders mistake.

I'll be happy to ask my Bishop. He's a bright guy and knowledgeable about the gospel and Church history. I also ask his counselor. I'll report back.

By the way, I teach Priesthood all the time and we are never afraid to tackle the tough issues in a spirit and demeanor appropriate for a Church setting. The quorum wouldn't blink an eye (much) if I discussed it, though without checking my notes, I may have already said it in some lesson. They blinked a few eyes when I taught them about how the Book of Mormon was translated - with a hat and peep stone and mostly not with the Urim and Thummin but since my documentation and source (including General Authorities as published by the Ensign) are impeccable, I do not get questioned. For Sacrament Meeting talk and good lessons I carry copies because I get asked for them and I want to have my sources handy for student of the gospel and history.

Okay - you're not moaning. That's me being too obnoxious, but of course I would gladly change my mind if there were a superior argument, expect no one has even attempted to reconcile the contradictions between BY and 1978. I am not ideologically driven based on dogma. I will accept truth be it through reason or the spirit.

[Snow]

Originally posted by daizymae@Sep 9 2005, 12:34 PM

]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?

Yes, and somehow I doubt you have prayed and received a confirmation that blacks would not receive the Priesthood in mortality and that white men that marry black women should be immediately killed.

Have you?

[seamusz]

Sorry about the extended absence, I spend my weekends away from the internet.

For the record: I asked 2 people at church regarding this issue(the only two that an appropriate opportunity presented itself to ask this question) one was a brother very knowledgeable in church history and such, the other was a counselor in the bishopric. Both agreed with the statements made by me and others... they agreed with the fundamental statement that the prophet BY, and subsequent prophets, spoke for the Lord in withholding the priesthood from blacks, and that in 1978 additional revelation was received in that the Lord expanded the right to hold the priesthood to all worthy male members. Or in the words of Bruce R McConkie (that have been quoted before)

"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."

As Elder McConkie stated like the gospel being limited to the House of Israel during the Minesty of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then being opened to the Gentiles in due time, we were blessed to see the day when the Lord would reveal that all worthy male members of the church would receive the priesthood.

I would think that this issue is pretty cut and dry.

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 9 2005, 09:23 PM

seamusz,

>>>Yes prophets speak for God when they are speaking in harmony with the scriptures and or inspired to do so. Prophets may not be speaking for God when they are expressing personal opinions that are out of harmony with the gospel. For example: When John Taylor said on August 28, 1881, "And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" (Journal of Discourses 22:304), or when Mark E. Peterson said in his speech, Race Problems as They Affect the Church, "If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection.", clearly both Taylor and Peterson were not speaking for the Lord and were out of harmony with the gospel as we now understand it.

Originally posted by Bruce R. McConkie+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bruce R. McConkie)</div>

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. ...We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow

However, I do think that Brigham Young was in harmony with the Spirit when he 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)

and

"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)

After all, this is a church that values personal revelation over blind obedience.

This is because the statements before do no apply to you Snow. They were statements given to different people for a different time. They have been superseded. You need not/should not dwell on them. Live in the here and now and pray about what the Prophet says now. We have been promised that by doing so we will receive the conformation of the spirit that what he says is true. It is not given to us to receive conformations about outdated sayings and/or teachings of the Prophets.

Those called to live the law of Poligamy received the strength and spirituality to do so in righteousness. We will not be given the same answer if we pray about the same issue and same statements.

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

>>>As for me being in harmony with the Lord - you, obviously, have no idea. All you can say is that I am out of what you consider to harmony. You are wholly unqualified to say anything more.

All I am doing is standing up for the truths of the gospel. And that is that the Prophets and Apostles will not teach anything contrary to the word of God.

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

>>>You are completely wrong when you say that one cannot pick and choose which statements (of Church Authorities to agree with and to disagree with. I disagree completely with Brigham Young when he says that a white man that procreates with a black woman should be immediately killed. If you agree with Brigham Young that whites who marry blacks deserve death - then I charge that you are dangerously out of harmony with God - in my opinion, but then again, I think that God is no respecter of persons.

This statement was never said to me. It doesn't concern me.

Originally posted by Snow

>>>About the question to the EQ Presidency... and I think it was obvious - the point being , as I already explained, that posing the question to an educated, rational and active Mormon, would, most usually get you the same response that I have been arguing for, which is... prophets are subject to error and this was an error.

I am curious what the outcome of these discussions with your church leaders have been.

Originally posted by Snow

>>>You are completely wrong when you say that Daisy's statements are in harmony with the prophets and mine are not.

Daisy's are in line with Brigham Young, John Taylor and Bruce R. McConkie prior to his admission of error. Mine are in line with Spencer W. Kimball, Howard Hunter, and Gordon B. Hinckley and Bruce McConkie after he admitted his and the prior leaders mistake.

That doesn't make much sense seeing as all the quotes you have used to back up your claim that prophets can teach contrary to the word of God are before the proclamation that came in 1978...

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@

I'll be happy to ask my Bishop. He's a bright guy and knowledgeable about the gospel and Church history. I also ask his counselor. I'll report back.

By the way, I teach Priesthood all the time and we are never afraid to tackle the tough issues in a spirit and demeanor appropriate for a Church setting. The quorum wouldn't blink an eye (much) if I discussed it, though without checking my notes, I may have already said it in some lesson. They blinked a few eyes when I taught them about how the Book of Mormon was translated - with a hat and peep stone and mostly not with the Urim and Thummin but since my documentation and source (including General Authorities as published by the Ensign) are impeccable, I do not get questioned. For Sacrament Meeting talk and good lessons I carry copies because I get asked for them and I want to have my sources handy for student of the gospel and history.

As I said before, I'm quite curious what the outcome of these meetings were.

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow

Okay - you're not moaning. That's me being too obnoxious, but of course I would gladly change my mind if there were a superior argument, expect no one has even attempted to reconcile the contradictions between BY and 1978. I am not ideologically driven based on dogma. I will accept truth be it through reason or the spirit.

Well, imho, Elder McConkie gives a pretty good argument reconciling the statements... But I guess if you are still unconvinced, we could try to do the discussion thing... Its up to you.

[Ray]

As a point of clarification, I think it’s important to note that prophets don’t speak for the Lord unless what they say has come from the Lord. Or in other words, Brigham Young or Joseph Smith or President Hinckley never spoke for the Lord unless the Lord spoke to them and they then spoke what the Lord had revealed to them. Or in other words, not everything a prophet says is the word of the Lord, because prophets have their own words too.

Anyway, I just wanted to make sure everyone understood that, because some people think that everything a prophet says has come directly from the Lord, even though the prophets themselves have never made such a claim.

It’s still important to listen to our prophets, though, and especially to prophets who are the leaders of the Church, because the leaders of the Church are authorized servants of our Lord.

[daizymae]

Originally posted by Ray@Sep 12 2005, 04:31 PM

As a point of clarification, I think it’s important to note that prophets don’t speak for the Lord unless what they say has come from the Lord.  Or in other words, Brigham Young or Joseph Smith or President Hinckley never spoke for the Lord unless the Lord spoke to them and they then spoke what the Lord had revealed to them.  Or in other words, not everything a prophet says is the word of the Lord, because prophets have their own words too.

Anyway, I just wanted to make sure everyone understood that, because some people think that everything a prophet says has come directly from the Lord, even though the prophets themselves have never made such a claim. 

It’s still important to listen to our prophets, though, and especially to prophets who are the leaders of the Church, because the leaders of the Church are authorized servants of our Lord.

←

I hope that none of my statements have led anyone to believe that I don't think a prophet holds his own opinions. Looking back in what I've said in this conversation, my comments have focused on teachings of the prophets to the church as a whole, which I believe are based on revelation or understanding given by the Lord.

Snow has made some good arguments, and, as he has pointed out, he has a vast knowledge of church history. My beef with his position in regards to this particular topic is his use of the word "proof". As I'm sure he knows, the origins of the policy have not been definitively traced.....there is no solid "for sure" evidence that the policy was instated by Joseph Smith, which leaves some to believe that it much have originated with Brigham Young. Other's believe that President Young would not have instituted the ban himself, but rather continued the teachings of Joseph Smith. The fact that later prophets did not repeal the ban does not mean that they did not have a desire to know whether it had a place in the church.

Originally posted by snow

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.

President Kimball himself said that his predecessors had sought the Lord's will concerning the policy and that for whatever reason, the time was not right. President McKay said that he did not see a scriptural or doctrinal basis for the policy and relied on his faith that the time would come when the Lord would grant understanding.

If we don't know for sure how the teachings began, how are we to know, with abosulte certainty or proof, if they were due to revelation or misunderstanding? Unless and until the church takes an official position, we are each entitled to make what we can of the informatin that we do have.....and it's no big deal for us to disagree. But, IMO, for one to stand up and say that he has proof....that isn't right. Not even the church has said that they have proof, one way or the other, so how can you Snow?

[Ray]

To study this issue I think we should first ask this question:

Did our Lord give any official guidelines for Joseph Smith or the First Presidency of the Church to use in determining who should or who should not hold the priesthood?

From there I think we should gather information to answer that question, and I think we should only be interested in information that came or at least purportedly came directly from our Lord. Or in other words, what Joseph Smith said or what Brigham Young said doesn’t make one bit of difference in determining whether or not our Lord gave any official guidelines, unless Joseph Smith or Brigham Young claimed they were revealing a revelation from our Lord.

And I think we should also realize that the President or First Presidency of the Church has our Lord's authority to organize and officiate in the kingdom of God on Earth, even without direct revelation from our Lord, and that our Lord will give revelation to His servants the prophets whenever He wants them to say or do something in a particular way.

And btw, to re-state my understanding of this issue, I believe Brigham Young spoke and acted on his own understanding of our Lord’s will to the best of his ability, that the Church supported Brigham Young because he was our Lord’s authorized servant, and that our Lord simply didn’t reveal to Brigham Young or any of the other presiding officers of the Church that He wanted black Africans to receive the priesthood until around 1978.

And as I also said, it was not “wrong” for Brigham Young to speak or act on his own understanding of our Lord's will to the best of his ability, because it was not wrong for him to not know what our Lord did not reveal to him.

[Sunset]

Carlotta,

I myself am a recent convert to the church. It took me a while of looking and listening to people to be able to know that I belonged here in this church. The best advice I believe that you can be given is that you need to pray and search for the answers that you need. You will be given understanding by most. The one thing that I can say is that you should make sure that YOU know that this church is true. Once you believe that, you just need time on the rest of the issues. Don't get baptized until you feel and heavenly father tells you that it is the right thing to do. Do not rush things. I had and still have a couple of issues with some of the things that are believed but I just study and I understand why they are how they are and I believe them. You just have to see the full view of the issues. Keep doing what you are doing, study, talk, listen. You will see the truth in your own time. Just give your mind some time to think it over. All of the issues you have will be shown in their true light and you will believe. Just don't close your mind to anything. Listen and learn with open eyes and ears!!! I wish you the best of luck and I assure you. Everything will work itself out in your mind in due time!!! Have a nice day!!!!

Sunset

[seamusz]

uh... Have you forgotten about this thread Snow?

[pushka]

I wonder how Carlotta is doing? Did she manage to stay with the thread once it spread to all the other topics and so many pages!!!

Please, Carlotta...get back in touch and let us know how you're doing? :)