where does it say "the prophet cannot lead us astray"???

[Timpman]

I'm mostly going to stay out of this because JaG's...nicer...but this theory of yours (while I understand was probably a bit off the cuff) is a bit silly. The white people need to suffer the consequences of the black people not getting the priesthood to learn their lesson? Huh?

 

Perhaps the "too many members of my Church have deep-seated racial prejudices" needed to see the negative consequences of the ban in order to learn to root out those prejudices and be willing to accept a lift on the ban. Here are some examples of the negative consequences, as related by Edward Kimball:

 

As awareness of the priesthood policy grew, many white potential investigators found the priesthood ban offensive and refused to listen to the missionaries. The escalation of the civil rights movement during the 1960s sensitized Americans to racial bigotry, and they found it difficult to see the Church’s prohibition on black ordination as anything else.

 

Protest against the Church policy took many forms—rejection of missionaries, public demonstrations, even sabotage. In 1962, a small bomb damaged the east doors of the Salt Lake Temple and blew out some windows. While no one claimed responsibility, many people assumed it was motivated by opposition to the priesthood policy. The Utah chapter of NAACP threatened to picket October general conference in 1963 but dropped the plan when President Hugh B. Brown indicated in a meeting with NAACP leaders that he would read a statement supporting full civil rights.

 

Congress adopted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The march from Selma, Alabama, to the state capitol occurred in 1965, and that same year three hundred protesters paraded to the Church Office Building demanding that the Church endorse a civil rights bill then languishing in the Utah legislature. The Church did not make a public statement, but the legislation passed.

 

Between 1968 and 1970 at least a dozen demonstrations or violent acts occurred when BYU athletic teams played other schools. Opposing players refused to participate or wore black armbands. One spectator threw acid, and another threw a Molotov cocktail that failed to ignite. Stanford severed athletic relations with BYU…

 

These athletics-related demonstrations generated enormous negative publicity for the school and the Church. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Timpman, I don't disagree that prejudices may have been part of the reasoning behind the ban. It's a bit of a stretch to infer from that a lack of revelation in instigating it, as deep seated prejudices certainly already existed prior to the ban. It is also entirely possible that the ban was given by God partially to test people by a trial of faith.

 

I stand by my prior statement. We don't know is not only the best party line, but the best thing to hold as an opinion. Anything else falls into the traps you yourself warn against.

Edited July 29, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Timpman]

Thanks for the reply, Folk Prophet. I respect your view as stated there. 

 

Vort, can you point out anything in my post that contradicts current, official teachings?

[Vort]

Vort, can you point out anything in my post that contradicts current, official teachings?

 

Which post, specifically?

[Timpman]

Which post, specifically?

 

Number 96. The big one. 

[Just_A_Guy]

First off, Timpman, I do appreciate your finally coming forward with a direct answer, which I think in part shows my earlier post was correct.  Your discussion of the theories doesn't occur in a vacuum; rather, you are simply trying to create a doctrinal void into which you can (whether now or later, whether publicly or privately) insert your own explanation for the priesthood ban.

 

Still, I have to acknowledge what Elder Oaks said. He clearly referred to the priesthood ban as a revelation and/or commandment during an interview in 1988. Well, I think he was working under an assumption then and that assumption is not supported today. I still believe the what Elders Oaks and Holland said about the explanations for the ban. Things in this post will point to why I do.

 

The trouble with pooh-poohing that part of Elder Oaks' statement as being antiquated, is that it was included in a seminary manual published in 2013 and in a Foundations of the Restoration institute manual published just this year.  The current D&C institute manual also states that

 

From the dispensation of Adam until the dispensation of the fulness of times, there has been a group of people who have not been allowed to hold the priesthood of God. The scriptural basis for this policy is Abraham 1:21–27.  [if the Q12 didn't know the scriptural basis for the ban in 1954 per Ed Kimball, they certainly seem to have figured it out by 1981 when the first version of this manual was published. --JAG]  The full reason for the denial has been kept hidden by the Lord, and one is left to assume that He will make it known in His own due time.
 

 

So, was there a revelation from God instituting the priesthood ban? Brigham Young didn’t mention a revelation. . . .

 

If a revelation occurred, it would be one of the most important things to include in the Race and Priesthood essay, but it doesn’t even hint that there might have been one. The essay states, “In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

 

That's kind of misleading, since Young was unambiguous that the policy indeed came from God Himself.  Granted, Young did not produce the written text of a revelation.  By the way--where's the text of the revelation saying that blacks should get the priesthood?  Where's the text of the revelation in which the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored?  What about the revelation that the Church should go forward with building numerous smaller temples?  Are you prepared to say that the lack of adequate documentation of those revelations means that Spencer Kimball, Joseph Smith, and Gordon Hinckley were lying when they attributed those respective events/policies to "revelation"?

 

Not every revelation is made available for public scrutiny--or indeed, even written at all.  Moreover, we know that the policy actually dates to 1847-1848.  We know this because Brigham Young was fine with (black) William McCary's ordination before Young took off with the pioneer advance party in '47; but by the time he returned to Iowa in '48 McCary had apostatized and Young was endorsing Parley Pratt's pontifications about how blacks had no right to the priesthood anyways.  Given that, at the time Young changed his mind, he had either just barely arrived in Salt Lake Valley or was on the trail headed back to Iowa; I am not inclined to take his failure to make a reliable record of the revelation as evidence that he was a liar.

 

 

A Church statement  says, “For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.”

 

Right.  It is not known precisely why.  But it seems you think you do know why; and that assurance belies the Church's official "we-don't-know" stance and permeates a great deal of your other writings on this thread.

 

 

The essay provides no indication that inspiration was involved. Rather, it mentions the “church being established during an era of great racial division in the United States.” It says slavery and racial prejudice “influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion.” It offers no defense or excuse for the ban. In my opinion, it implies Brigham Young was influenced by the times to implement the ban. I see nothing in it that contradicts this opinion.

 

The trouble is that right after those statements, it talks about how Joseph Smith and early Mormonism bucked those traditions in a number of ways.  So, no; an objective reader wouldn't take the quotations you cite as some sort of proof that these were the conditions that led to the ban.

 

The essay then proceeds to give a brief history of American racial relations through the Loving decision; and then backtracks to the creation of Utah Territory and the 1852 public announcement of the ban.  The trouble is that no one seriously thinks Young's announcement of the ban was a result of Utah's achieving territorial status or any influx of slaveholding converts into Utah territory.  So this paragraph--and those that precede it--clearly aren't suggesting any form of proximate causation; they merely contextualize the issue.

 

But the essay does mention (and, unfortunately, soft-pedals) David O. McKay's experience when he flat-out asked the Lord for permission to rescind the ban.  More on that, below.

 

 

I have heard it argued that God must be behind the ban since He didn’t direct President McKay to lift it. I think that’s a stretch and there are other possible explanations. I imagine God’s view on the matter could have been, “Since the time the priesthood ban was instituted without my approval, various theories to support it have been promulgated. As a result, too many members of my Church have deep-seated racial prejudices and the Church is not ready for a change. They need to suffer the consequences of the ban for a bit longer so they will learn their lesson.”

 

. . . .

 

3. God did not intervene to prevent the ban because He sometimes allows His children (including prophets) to make mistakes (even big ones) and suffer the consequences. Other examples of God allowing bad things include divorce among the Israelites (Matthew 19:7-8), a king for Israel (1 Samuel 8), and the loss of the 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript (D&C 3).

 

That possibility that the ban was imposed as punishment against the Church for something doesn't strike me as beyond the realm of possibility; but I strongly doubt it was punishment for Young's action specifically or for the Church's acceptance thereof.  If God can order the policy maintained as some form of chastizement to the Church, it becomes very difficult to say He wouldn't have order the policy implemented--either to chastize the Church, or for some other reason.

 

At any rate--as I've suggested before--regardless of the reasons for the policy's implementation; once God tells David O. McKay to keep the ban in place (as two independent witnesses claim McKay told them)--He owns the policy.  You can't claim that the existence of the policy after that time (probably around 1968 or so) was lacking in divine authorization. 

 

And it seems worth asking: if you're OK with God implementing policies geared towards chastizing the descendants of white people due to the sins/attitudes of their fathers, but deny He might do the same to descendants of black people due to the sins/attitudes of their fathers--well, aren't you being a little (ulp!) racist?
 

 

I don’t really understand why only Levites were made priests among the people of Israel. However, we know the priesthood was not strictly limited to Levites. Otherwise, by what authority did Lehi offer sacrifices? I also don’t really understand the situation with the Lamanite curse in the Book of Mormon. It wasn’t race-based - my children and my brother’s children are of the same race.  It seems the Lamanites could repent at any time and receive the priesthood.

 

(Tangent)  In point of fact, the levitical (Aaronic) priesthood was limited strictly to Levites.  Lehi gets an out because he holds the Melchizedek priesthood.

 

The Lamanites could repent, yes; but they could not claim an inheritence in Israel through any lineage except Joseph.  They could not turn themselves into Jews, or Levites, or Benjaminites; and they could not claim the duties or blessings unique to those particular tribes.

 

 

What I do understand is that the Lord revealed to Peter that the Gospel should go to the Gentiles and any supposed discrimination by God that occurred prior to that time is irrelevant.

 

You're assuming that when Peter preached and baptized amongst "all nations" (a problematic phrase, but I won't delve into it here), he also ordained priesthood holders amongst all nations.  In fact, the Bible is silent on that issue. 

 

And, we still have post-1978 McConkie:

 

The gospel goes to various peoples and nations on a priority basis. We were commanded in the early days of this dispensation to preach the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. Our revelations talk about its going to every creature. There was, of course, no possible way for us to do all of this in the beginning days of our dispensation, nor can we now, in the full sense.

 

And so, guided by inspiration, we began to go from one nation and one culture to another. Someday, in the providences of the Lord, we shall get into Red China and Russia and the Middle East, and so on, until eventually the gospel will have been preached everywhere, to all people; and this will occur before the Second Coming of the Son of Man.

 

These are exactly the sorts of doctrinal babies that I worry you hasten to throw out with the more clearly racist bathwater of the past, in an effort to give us a warm-fuzzy, non-discriminatory God.

 

That God loves all His children, is not in question.  But the idea that God treats all of His children exactly alike--or that mortals should be able to predict the blessings a person ought to receive given a particular degree of apparent obedience--or that God will never act in a way that we find deeply, deeply troubling--is just plain incorrect.  Our doctrine doesn't support it, and neither does reality.

 

 

It is not my objective to loudly proclaim that Brigham Young was wrong. In my view, I am just acknowledging that he was wrong in this instance. That doesn’t mean I am encouraging anyone to doubt the prophet today. I say to myself, “At least 99% of what the prophets have taught us is true. I can accept that 1% may not be true without rejecting them outright. Jesus is still my Savior, the priesthood was restored, and this is still God’s church.”

 

This sort of brings us back into the main (ostensible) subject of this thread, I suppose--would the priesthood ban, if an error, constitute "leading us astray"?  When we discussed this a year and a half ago I offered some thoughts here and here; but to be succinct:  By my lights, the Church's raison d'etre is to teach the Gospel and administer the ordinances thereof in order to accomplish the salvation and exaltation of the entire human family. Its leaders' abject refusal to fulfill that commission vis-à-vis an entire race would be, to me, a major sign that those leaders were leading a major portion of the world away from the oracles of God and leading the membership away from their duty--thus creating the sort of situation President Woodruff promised was impossible.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Vort, can you point out anything in my post [#96] that contradicts current, official teachings?

 

No, I don't see any specific statement you made that contradicts "official" teachings. But this is relatively meaningless; I could discourse for hours on the history of the Elven races in The Lord of the Rings or the traits of various Pokèmons without contradicting Church doctrine.

 

Rather, you are trying to substantiate your viewpoint and systematically shut down other viewpoints, and specifically trying to denigrate the integrity of past prophetic teachings that you personally don't like, by argumentation that includes things very much unsubstantiated by Church doctrine. The obvious example is your false claim that the Church's disavowal of previously taught ideas to explain the Priesthood ban is:

1. The same as saying that the Church repudiates those ideas as false;

   and, more importantly,

    

2. A tacit acknowledgement that the Priesthood ban was itself a racist and bad thing.

Both of these points are false, and #2 is especially pernicious.

 

Statements you made in that post that are unsubstantiated by "official" teachings;

 

• “The disavowed theories are as good as folklore…

   

• Still, I have to acknowledge what Elder Oaks said. He clearly referred to the priesthood ban as a revelation and/or commandment during an interview in 1988. Well, I think he was working under an assumption then and that assumption is not supported today.

   

• If a revelation occurred, it would be one of the most important things to include in the Race and Priesthood essay

   

• Edward L. Kimball’s paper “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood” is insightful...The essay provides no indication that inspiration was involved.

   

• In my opinion, it [Kimball's essay] implies Brigham Young was influenced by the times to implement the ban.

   

• I imagine God’s view on the matter could have been, “Since the time the priesthood ban was instituted without my approval, various theories to support it have been promulgated. As a result, too many members of my Church have deep-seated racial prejudices and the Church is not ready for a change. They need to suffer the consequences of the ban for a bit longer so they will learn their lesson.”

• Edward Kimball wrote

• Was the priesthood ban based on scripture? Edward Kimball wrote

   

• However, we know the priesthood was not strictly limited to Levites.

[This one is a bait-and-switch, since the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood, which was the one under discussion, certainly was restricted to Levites.]

• I also don’t really understand the situation with the Lamanite curse in the Book of Mormon. It wasn’t race-based - my children and my brother’s children are of the same race.

[This is an attempt at redirection, basically a quibble about what "race" means. The Book of Mormon is crystal clear that the Lamanites as a people were cursed and even marked by a "skin of blackness", which most doubtless consider a racial trait.]

• It seems the Lamanites could repent at any time and receive the priesthood.

[True, but irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that they were cursed, they were made distinct, and that distinction involved a stereotypically racial trait.]

• So I give the following as my opinion:

[Along with the four points you listed]

• I am just acknowledging that he [brigham Young] was wrong in this instance.

 

I am also a bit perturbed by your penultimate sentence:

 

Since what I have presented here is only my opinion and I’m not trying to convince anyone to accept it, there’s no need for anyone to get upset over it.

 

Do I really need to quote from your extensive participation on this thread to demonstrate that you most certainly were trying to convince others to accept your argumentation?

[Vort]

JAG is doing such an excellent job at deconstructing Timpman's arguments and asking him incisive questions that my participation seems superfluous (at best). Maybe I'll follow TFP's lead and leave the floor to JAG.

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks for the kind words, but it's about time I bowed out too. I have a three-day trial starting tomorrow so my time here will be limited. :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Maybe I'll follow TFP's lead and leave the floor to JAG.

 

Meh. I say that, but as soon as I read something that raises my hackles a bit I'm sure I'll jump right in and offend someone somehow.

[Timpman]

Vort: No, I don't see any specific statement you made that contradicts "official" teachings. But this is relatively meaningless; I could discourse for hours on the history of the Elven races in The Lord of the Rings or the traits of various Pokèmons without contradicting Church doctrine.

I may be misunderstanding, but I am sensing hostility from you.

 

Vort: Rather, you are trying to substantiate your viewpoint and systematically shut down other viewpoints, and specifically trying to denigrate the integrity of past prophetic teachings that you personally don't like, by argumentation that includes things very much unsubstantiated by Church doctrine.

Are you saying Elder Oaks was wrong when he said, “Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong…I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon…by others…The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent.”? Was Elder Holland wrong when he said, “All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong.”

 

Vort: The obvious example is your false claim that the Church's disavowal of previously taught ideas to explain the Priesthood ban is:

 

1. The same as saying that the Church repudiates those ideas as false;

 

and, more importantly,

 

2. A tacit acknowledgement that the Priesthood ban was itself a racist and bad thing.

 

Both of these points are false, and #2 is especially pernicious.

 

Your opinion has been noted. I would say more if you weren’t so darn rude J

 

Vort: Aside from the fact that you have no authority to "acknowledge" Brigham's mistake in this area (and that it is disloyal and treacherous of you to make any such public judgment)…

I have authority to speak for myself and that’s all I did. 

[Timpman]

I’ll reply to some things, but not all. I don’t want to spend the whole day on this.

 

JAG: Your discussion of the theories doesn't occur in a vacuum; rather, you are simply trying to create a doctrinal void into which you can (whether now or later, whether publicly or privately) insert your own explanation for the priesthood ban. 

 

Even if my opinion on the ban is totally wrong, or if I didn’t have an explanation at all, I could stand by what I have written regarding the disavowed theories.

 

JAG: The trouble with pooh-poohing that part of Elder Oaks' statement as being antiquated, is that it was included in a seminary manual published in 2013 and in a Foundations of the Restoration institute manual published just this year.  

 

I admit the statement by Elder Oaks is a conundrum to me. I am not married to my opinion. I can see how God may have said something like, “I don’t want this, but do what you will and suffer the consequences,” similar to the story in 1 Samuel 8. I guess that would technically be a revelation.

 

JAG: Granted, Young did not produce the written text of a revelation.  By the way--where's the text of the revelation saying that blacks should get the priesthood?.... 

 

This is a good point. I don’t expect a written revelation to be provided. If there was one, it would be nice to hear something about it.

 

JAG: The current D&C institute manual also states that

From the dispensation of Adam until the dispensation of the fulness of times, there has been a group of people who have not been allowed to hold the priesthood of God. The scriptural basis for this policy is Abraham 1:21–27. 

 

It appears that’s the basis for saying “From the dispensation of Adam until the dispensation of the fulness of times, there has been a group of people who have not been allowed to hold the priesthood of God” in general. Those verses say nothing about black/African people in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. They refer to “the curse” and the theory “that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse” is disavowed.

 

JAG: It is not known precisely why.  But it seems you think you do know why; and that assurance belies the Church's official "we-don't-know" stance and permeates a great deal of your other writings on this thread.

 

I didn’t say I know why the priesthood ban was instigated. I presented my opinion on it. That’s very different.

 

JAG: And it seems worth asking: if you're OK with God implementing policies geared towards chastizing the descendants of white people due to the sins/attitudes of their fathers, but deny He might do the same to descendants of black people due to the sins/attitudes of their fathers--well, aren't you being a little (ulp!) racist? 

 

So let’s say God did take ownership of the policy in the late 60s. I am saying perhaps people at that very time “needed to see the negative consequences of the ban in order to learn to root out those prejudices and be willing to accept a lift on the ban.” I didn’t mean to stress that God may have been punishing people. I wanted to convey that people needed to learn a lesson. And I didn’t say “white people.”  :)

 

[Timpman]

Vort: Statements you made in that post that are unsubstantiated by "official" teachings;

 “The disavowed theories are as good as folklore…

 

Still, I have to acknowledge what Elder Oaks said. He clearly referred to the priesthood ban as a revelation and/or commandment during an interview in 1988. Well, I think he was working under an assumption then and that assumption is not supported today.

 

If a revelation occurred…. 

 

 

Vort, I didn’t try to convey that was presenting official Church teachings. I was very clear that I was just giving my opinion. I didn’t “bait-and-switch” or make “an attempt at redirection” on purpose. Relax, dude.

 

Vort: I am also a bit perturbed by your penultimate sentence:

 

Since what I have presented here is only my opinion and I’m not trying to convince anyone to accept it, there’s no need for anyone to get upset over it. 

 

Do I really need to quote from your extensive participation on this thread to demonstrate that you most certainly were trying to convince others to accept your argumentation? 

 

Did you overlook all the times JAG asked me about my opinion on the ban? I didn’t want to discuss it, but he persisted and posted a link to what I said in 2013 so I decided to write my opinion. Yes, I was totally “trying to convince others” when we were talking about the disavowed theories related to the ban, but I was not doing so when I wrote my opinion on the ban itself. 

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Timpman

[The Folk Prophet]

I can see how God may have said something like, “I don’t want this, but do what you will and suffer the consequences,” similar to the story in 1 Samuel 8. I guess that would technically be a revelation.

 

I guess that would play out something like:

 

And the people came unto Brigham and said unto him, ban the blacks from the priesthood, for we despise them.

 

And Brigham told all the words of the people unto the Lord.

 

And the Lord said unto Brigham, give them what they want for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me. But first go and tell them what this will bring upon them.

 

And Brigham went and told the people all the things the Lord had shown him -- that the restriction would hinder the gospel and become a stumbling block to many.

 

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Brigham; and they said, Nay; but we will have the ban.

 

So Brigham went and rehearsed all the people had said unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Brigham, give them what they want.

 

Except, apparently, Brigham didn't actually speak the words of the Lord to the people...no...he actually wanted the ban himself, because he, just like the wicked people rejecting the Lord, wanted his own way and will over the Lord's. Yeah...that's it. Because Brigham wasn't a "real" prophet like Moses or Samuel. He was just a guy who happened to be the president of the twelve and so was forced into the position when Joseph died.

 

That about how this plays out in your mind?

 

I didn’t say I know why the priesthood ban was instigated. I presented my opinion on it. That’s very different.

 

Is perpetuating something that may not be true dangerous or not?

[Vort]

I have not enjoyed the whole tone of your responses in this thread, and frankly I have liked my own even less. Rather than spend a lot of time writing a response that you will just mostly ignore, as you have already done, and that I will probably regret writing, I would rather cut to the chase.

 

Here is the bottom line: You are saying that the Priesthood ban was not of God.

 

That is wrong.

 

You are insisting on an interpretation that either:

1. Foolish prophets, deceived by the hubris of their own prejudices, imposed the completely unjust and evil Priesthood ban, which God then merely tolerated; or, at most,
    
2. God gave into the weaknesses of his leadership and membership and allowed them their precious Priesthood ban.
   
   But how about:
    
3. God instituted the Priesthood ban for reasons of his own, reasons which are not publicly known, and then the time came to withdraw that ban?

This last possibility appears to be the one accepted by the prophets themselves, but you seem studiously to avoid it. leading you to insist that All Previous Theories Are Totally Wrong. You come across as having a vendetta against Brigham Young and the earlier prophets and leaders.

 

What, exactly, is the problem with #3 that you insist on rejecting it?

[Timpman]

TFP: Except, apparently, Brigham didn't actually speak the words of the Lord to the people...no...he actually wanted the ban himself, because he, just like the wicked people rejecting the Lord, wanted his own way and will over the Lord's. Yeah...that's it. Because Brigham wasn't a "real" prophet like Moses or Samuel. He was just a guy who happened to be the president of the twelve and so was forced into the position when Joseph died.

 

No, that's not what I was thinking. I'm tired of being accused of thinking or saying things. It's not just you, TPF.

 

Vort, I'm sorry you didn't like my tone. I tried to be respectful. I think part of the problem is how you sometimes perceived my tone. 

 

Well, this is my last post. Good bye  :) 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Timpman

[Windseeker]

Reading thru this thread I find the level of discourse could improve. I think we can do much better especially under the topic of an LDS Gospel Discussion. Perhaps a sincere effort to understand and clarify before turning to mockery. 

 

It seems like the more this world sinks into wickedness the more certain members feel the need to purge our numbers of those who don't think the same as they do. This is the Gospel, we ought to be reaching out, not shoving out. 

 

Similarly, the Bible teaches that “wise men turn away wrath”. The early Apostles taught that we should “follow after the things [that] make for peace”  and “[speak] the truth in love” , “for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God”. In modern revelation the Lord commanded that the glad tidings of the restored gospel should be declared “every man to his neighbor, in mildness and in meekness” , “with all humility, … reviling not against revilers” . ~ Elder Dallin H Oaks

[Vort]

Vort, I'm sorry you didn't like my tone. I tried to be respectful. I think part of the problem is how you sometimes perceived my tone. 

 

Yes, possibly. I suspect you did not read that sentence all the way through.

 

I am sorry for letting my frustration make me snippy. I am sensitive to what I perceive as criticism of the prophets and the Church's doctrine, but I don't pretend to have all the answers myself.

[The Folk Prophet]

It seems like the more this world sinks into wickedness the more certain members feel the need to purge our numbers of those who don't think the same as they do. 

 

As much as I agree with, (and accept the reproof as legitimate), your call to keep the mocking tone out of the discourse, this ^ particular sentence is mistaken. No one's trying to purge our number by debating what is and is not true and right. An effort to convince others is very different than trying to get rid of them entirely.

[Windseeker]

As much as I agree with, (and accept the reproof as legitimate), your call to keep the mocking tone out of the discourse, this ^ particular sentence is mistaken. No one's trying to purge our number by debating what is and is not true and right. An effort to convince others is very different than trying to get rid of them entirely.

 

I apologize for the wording and I'm sure you along with most forum members don't come here for an echo chamber. 

 

It just does seem to me, of late, that within our ranks we focus on winning the battle in a way that runs counter to winning the war. Perhaps our effort to convince each other should reflect the same care and consideration we demonstrate when we reach out to non-members.

 

When you're a hammer everything often looks like a nail and while I appreciate your and others ability and effort to defend the faith against those who have impure motives, not everyone you or I encounter is here to corrupt, and many are sincerely just trying to make sense and piece together what we know.

 

Disagreement done right will help us reflect rather then cause one to despair and throw in the towel.  

 

..and believe me I'm no holier than thou, I'm sure I've offended people with my online mannerisms or opinion or posted meme's. Just some food for thought when it comes to discussing our faith.

[The Folk Prophet]

I apologize for the wording and I'm sure you along with most forum members don't come here for an echo chamber. 

 

It just does seem to me, of late, that within our ranks we focus on winning the battle in a way that runs counter to winning the war. Perhaps our effort to convince each other should reflect the same care and consideration we demonstrate when we reach out to non-members.

 

When you're a hammer everything often looks like a nail and while I appreciate your and others ability and effort to defend the faith against those who have impure motives, not everyone you or I encounter is here to corrupt, and many are sincerely just trying to make sense and piece together what we know.

 

Disagreement done right will help us reflect rather then cause one to despair and throw in the towel.  

 

..and believe me I'm no holier than thou, I'm sure I've offended people with my online mannerisms or opinion or posted meme's. Just some food for thought when it comes to discussing our faith.

 

I agree. It's hard to do this when feeling attacked of course (as in, "you're wrong to be perpetuating these disavowed theories"). But that's no excuse.

 

It's also easier to come across as bullying when, by coincidence, you end up with a 3 on 1 situation. When the reverse is true, it's easy to become the picked on instead of the picker uponer, so when the opportunity to gang up and pick upon occurs it's easy to sometimes step beyond propriety.

 

This is one thing I really respect about JaG, which I alluded to earlier in the thread. He does a very, very good job of simply stating the facts without throwing in the sarcasm, etc.

 

Would that I could communicate more like that.

 

Thank you for the reminder.

 

Timpman - just so we're clear - my intention wasn't to mock, though I see that the tone could easily have come across that way.* My intent was to express how you are coming across to me and have you clarify, defend, or sustain that position. I apologize for the mocking tone of it.

 

* That's putting it lightly - in retrospect it's obvious that it would come across that way.

[BurningSword]

so i was curious where that whole The Lord will not allow a prophet to lead us astray came from? the earliest ive read is brigham young said it(got it from his journal of discourses so i think that is pretty reliable). but considering the church fails to teach and in many cases rejects a lot of what young taught i would find it odd that they kept that even ironic. i have heard but cannot find it that supposedly Christ told Joseph smith this? if this is true can anyone point me to the source of that information? thanks in advance

 

The promise was that the church would continue onto the end and that God would restore it Himself in time, it is known even in the doctrines that in last days their would be apostasy within the church members. It is also known that not all the higher ways were revealed but were to be revealed in the time of Zion Gathering when Elias would come to restore all things.  For Elias will hold the full priesthood which none do hold right now, only a portion of it the full priesthood gives the power of Heaven and is why the two witnesses which Elias is one them will be able to perform miracles greater than anything seen. Elias shall prepare the way for the coming of Christ in day of burning he is a Special Witness of the Power of Christ. 

[BurningSword]

If One from Heaven came upon a forum and spoke of greater things, the members of LDS church almost all of them would mock the things spoken and speak against it, calling that man a apostate. For the reason is simply pride people are filled in pride and believe they already know enough, the humble are always with a empty cup ready to receive clean water. 

 

On the mater of church authority making mistakes, yes it has happened and not all doctrines of LDS is complete or correct. It takes learning to discern through the Light of Christ within to be shown by the spirit of truth what is right and isn't. People are meant to learn to tap into the Spirit for themselves so they cant be lead astray in the world at all. 

 

From my own revelations given, I can confirm that the information said of Black people coming from the descents of Cain is correct, and this is why Africa is a country as it is with great poverty, but this does not mean that those of greater fortune should not aid them, for God will hold the world accountable for ignoring the hungry, poor and homeless. It was not only Cain which genetic changes occurred in other events in history lead to variations of other races. Consequences of peoples sins of different cultures throughout the generations is what lead to the variety of humanity of today, it was the adversary behind it knowing that creating differences in language and racial look would bring forth more conflict and racism leading to war. 

 

In the Millennial their is no variations of race all are the same as once was so shall it be again and all shall speak as One language united. Racism has not purpose and is brought forth through the fruits of the Adversary not God.

[The Folk Prophet]

... hold the full priesthood which none do hold right now,

 

Wrong.

[The Folk Prophet]

If One from Heaven came upon a forum and spoke of greater things, the members of LDS church almost all of them would mock the things spoken and speak against it, calling that man a apostate. For the reason is simply pride people are filled in pride and believe they already know enough, the humble are always with a empty cup ready to receive clean water. 

 

Way to preamble your argument in such a way as to try and make it look like anyone who doesn't agree with you must be filled with pride. 

 

From my own revelations given....

 

O.......kay......well then...that.....settles the matter.......doesn't it? 

Edited August 12, 2015 by The Folk Prophet