Why don't we listen to the prophets!!!

[Sundays_Warrior]

Hey guys! This is my first post here. I found this board because I need a place to vent. A few weeks ago in elders quorum we started talking about the priesthood ban on blacks. During the discussion one of the guys there suggested that it was wrong of the brethren to do so. I told him that the Lord would not lead the church astray and that if he commanded the prophets to ban blacks from holding the priesthood, it was RIGHT. He actually responded by giving me some quotes by Pres. Young and Elder McConkie about black skin being the curse of Cain and blacks not being valiant in the pre-existence as if these statements somehow proved that the Lord's annointed were misguided or wrong!!!! He even suggested that the church may change it's policy on gays the same way it did for blacks!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm really afraid for my friend's salvation. I fear he's on the road to apostacy. How can I convice him that GOD DOSN"T MAKE MISTAKES?

[mightynancy]

Here we go.

[volgadon]

How can I convice him that GOD DOSN"T MAKE MISTAKES?

That isn't the issue.

[Sundays_Warrior]

That isn't the issue.

What do you mean?

[Dravin]

What do you mean?

He means it is highly unlikely that the person in question's reasoning is "God screwed up."

[Sundays_Warrior]

He means it is highly unlikely that the person in question's reasoning is "God screwed up."

God was the one who banned blacks. How can you question the doctrine without questioning God?

[Dravin]

God was the one who banned blacks. How can you question the doctrine without questioning God?

One doesn't accept the premise that God was the one who banned the blacks from receiving the priesthood. That brings up other potential issues of course but it makes the line of reasoning something different than "God screwed up."

Edit: For what it's worth you're likely to see something closer to his actual reasoning brought up in some of the previous threads about the issue on the boards, one of such was this one: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36633-issues-brigham-young.html

Edited April 6, 2011 by Dravin

[Sundays_Warrior]

One doesn't accept the premise that God was the one who banned the blacks from receiving the priesthood. That brings up other potential issues of course but it makes the line of reasoning something different than "God screwed up."

You guys are sounding exactly like my friend!!If it wasn't God's will He could have changed the policy at any time. If the prophets were saying somthing wrong the Lord would have corrected them. Even prophets are immperfect men BUT THEY CANT LEAD THE CHURCH ASTRAY!!!!

[Dravin]

You guys are sounding exactly like my friend!!

Really? Please quote the person in this thread who stated the ban of blacks from the priesthood wasn't ordained of God*.

/me waits.

I didn't think so. Do you need a brown paper sack so you can work through your hyperventilating? If this is how you tend to react it's no wonder you are having troubles understanding where your friend is coming from as you are too busy ascribing to him what you think he's saying instead of actually listening. Here's a helpful hint, if you seriously want to talk to him about the issue it behooves you to know his actual position. So calm down.

* I'm not saying everyone in this thread agrees that such is the case but nobody has provided their position in this thread. Of course even if they had getting hysterical doesn't benefit anyone.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Dravin

[Sundays_Warrior]

I'm just trying to help a member of my quorum whos struggling and I thought you guys could help. If your questioning the brothren or the desisions made by the brothren your obviously on the road to apostasy!!! If you want to help then tell me what you would tell this elder.

[volgadon]

He means it is highly unlikely that the person in question's reasoning is "God screwed up."

Thank you. That is my point exactly. I suspect that what his friend meant is that the policy (and more pertinently) the justification for it, was man seeing through a glass darkly.

He really ought to try and ascertain what it is his friend thinks, and why.

[jayanna]

I understand how frustrating it is....it would be best, though, for priesthood to move on to the next lesson rather than covering disagreements on the previous one.

Build on common ground, the Lord does not want divisions in your ward, there is too much work to do to get wrapped up on this issue.

[Sundays_Warrior]

Thank you. That is my point exactly. I suspect that what his friend meant is that the policy (and more pertinently) the justification for it, was man seeing through a glass darkly.

He really ought to try and ascertain what it is his friend thinks, and why.

I know what hes thinking. He said stuff like "God wouldnt deny someone blessings based on there skin color" and "Black people were banned because those leaders had racist beliefs." Yes, he actually called them racist. How can you say things like that and still hold a temple recommend?????

[volgadon]

I'm just trying to help a member of my quorum whos struggling and I thought you guys could help. If your questioning the brothren or the desisions made by the brothren your obviously on the road to apostasy!!!

I work in a call center. An important aspect of our interaction with customers is active listening. We listen, probe and rephrase, to see if we understand the issue, and anything that might be lying below the tip of the iceberg. You haven't attempted any of this, but would rather cry "apostates!"

If you want to help then tell me what you would tell this elder.

I wouldn't tell him anything before ascertaining what his belief is and why he believes it.

[Blocky]

God doesn't make mistakes. A lot of time though, there can be a mistake on how we interpret His intentions. Think of the Word of Wisdom and how to some it means they don't drink coffee of regular tea. To others, they are fine with green tea. Some will consume food made with those products, others won't. Then there are those who say drinking caffeinated soda is a sin. This is to not even get into the other aspects of the Word of Wisdom.

Things are given and taken away. Abraham was commanded to kill Issac, then told not too. We interpret the meaning of these things in a personal way, hopefully guided by personal revelation. There is a danger in telling others that the way we personally see things is the only right way. Understanding is given a little at a time and sometimes we're not as far ahead of the game as we think. Even when we are, that doesn't mean we should simply lay it out for everyone else so they can all of a sudden understand. That's not how wisdom is gained.

In your post I read a lot of urgency and franticness concerning this other member. Making conjures about something as complicated as the priesthood ban doesn't mean someone is going towards apostasy. If they are, where does our responsibility lie as a friend and fellow member? It lies within our selves, to keep following the commandments to the best of our ability and knowledge. Focusing on others and making assumptions about them can distract from our own journey.

On these forums you'll see a lot of back and forth about gospel principles, about some fringe ideas, about doubts and theories. This doesn't mean these people are on their way to apostasy, it can mean they like juggling ideas back and forth and enjoy conversations about what if's and maybe's. None of that automatically equals lack of faith.

[Dravin]

Thank you. That is my point exactly. I suspect that what his friend meant is that the policy (and more pertinently) the justification for it, was man seeing through a glass darkly.

He really ought to try and ascertain what it is his friend thinks, and why.

Indeed, which is why it is so important not to go hysterical and utilize straw-men but to calmly and reasonably discuss the issue and if applicable bear testimony. And Jayanna brings up a good point, belaboring the point isn't going to change minds and will just build discord.

The reason I gave the link I did was so the OP might peruse it and be able to contemplate the points in a calm and reasonable manner and then with a better idea of things discuss the issue with his Brother in a loving way.

I'm just trying to help a member of my quorum whos struggling and I thought you guys could help. If your questioning the brothren or the desisions made by the brothren your obviously on the road to apostasy!!! If you want to help then tell me what you would tell this elder.

Honestly, I suggest a more accurate rendering in your own mind of his position and prayer then follow what the spirit impresses to you. Unless your intention is simply a rhetorical victory but I don't get the sense that such is what you seek.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Dravin

[Blocky]

Yes, he actually called them racist. How can you say things like that and still hold a temple recommend?????

Because he still believes they were a prophet of God? He has a different view of how imperfect prophets can be than you. He's allowed that.

[volgadon]

I know what hes thinking.

Ay, there's the rub.

He said stuff like "God wouldnt deny someone blessings based on there skin color"

Would he?

and "Black people were banned because those leaders had racist beliefs." Yes, he actually called them racist. How can you say things like that and still hold a temple recommend?????

He called 19th century men racist. Shocking. He must be teetering on the brink of outer darkness. Brigham Young was racist. So was Albert Schweizer. This is a statement of fact. Men of the 19th century (and much of the 20th also) were racist. They thought in terms of race. This does not make them wicked, or bad, or unfit to serve as the Lord's anointed.

[jayanna]

Yes, he actually called them racist. How can you say things like that and still hold a temple recommend?????

It does not matter what he said, or how right/wrong it is. If he is not ready to accept what you say, you will be wasting your time which could be spent on more important matters. What matters is what you do from here.

Here is an article from the 2006 Ensign He Offended Me! - Ensign Jan. 2006

It explains exactly what I am trying to say.

[Dravin]

Because he still believes they were a prophet of God? He has a different view of how imperfect prophets can be than you. He's allowed that.

You know, the OPs response seems fairly typical for someone finding out how non-monolithic Latter-day Saints are about just what we do and don't believe and what we take from what they do happen to believe in common. I know my initial reaction when I came face to face with that fact was similar in it's franticness and zeal to convert all dissenters to the one true approach (aka my approach).

Edited April 6, 2011 by Dravin

[Dravin]

Would he?

Isn't it funny? The way I've had it explained to me it was a ban of lineage*, which means technically the OP should be in agreement with the statement. Or at least shouldn't disagree with it as there is no precedence for the Lord banning the priesthood based on skin color (unless we include something like a blemish)**.

*I swear I've heard some claim that blacks not of African descent (such as Australian Aborigines) has been given the priesthood prior to the removal of the ban. I can't remember what thread it was in nor what sources were used as support for the claim though. At any rate I've always heard it was their lineage not their skin color which prohibited them from receiving the priesthood.

** It is possible there is an example I'm forgetting and I'm about to become extremely embarrassed when someone points it out to me.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Dravin

[volgadon]

For the record, I'm sure God had a reason for allowing the ban, however I don't know what it is.

[Blocky]

You know, the OPs response seems fairly typical for someone finding out how non-monolithic Latter-day Saints are about just what we do and don't believe and what we take from what they do happen to believe in common. I know my initial reaction when I came face to face with that fact was similar in it's franticness and zeal to convert all dissenters to the one true approach (aka my approach).

I think my being a convert and living in an area that's not heavily LDS helps me be a little more accepting. I'd ask someone a question, and get an answer. I'd ask someone else the same question and get a slightly different answer. Yet, they were both people who really brought the Spirit to the conversation.

I also can remember thinking I understood something, like the atonement (I was a teenager, forgive my arrogance!)... then learning more, and realizing how little I did understand, how there's so many angles and directions you can go with one 'basic' thing. Plus, I've never really liked being told how to think:P

[Dravin]

For the record, I'm sure God had a reason for allowing the ban, however I don't know what it is.

I find myself in a similar position. Neither possibility (of the two more popular ones offered), that it was instituted by God for his own purposes or he allowed it to happen for his own purposes shakes my faith in the Gospel and is why I tend not to get too invested in debates over the matter. My technicality was just that, I wasn't trying to use you as an aha to prove one position over the other. And I doubt pointing out it was lineage not skin color is going to make the OP's friend change his position. *shrug*

Edited April 6, 2011 by Dravin

[new-to-the-show]

I don't think this has to be a big deal. When Christ was on the earth he said not to give the priesthood to the Gentiles, and even to not preach to them. The priesthood has been banned due to skin color or race, or culture, before and having it in the last century should be no big deal.

Some people may view it as racist old men, but it's God, and God's ways are not man's ways (Isaiah 55:8). God is the same today, tomorrow, and yesterday (Hebrew 13:8) and will not change because of man. What may be perceived as 'racism' is not if it's God. He decided when it would change, and change it did eventually. If you believe in the Bible then there is no issue here.

Edited April 6, 2011 by new-to-the-show