Some Theories for Discussion

[Guest]

I had a very thought provoking discussion with a friend of mine the other day.  I'd like to highlight the thoughts for discussion.

1) The reason for Blacks and the Priesthood Ban was because the Church didn't have proper resources to expand into Africa until we did.  If more blacks were not only baptized, but ordained, there would have been so many of them that wanted to go on missions to Africa, that the church's resources would have been depleted. And we'd be unable to support them there.  Some holes in this theory.  But it does have some merits as well.

2) The Church membership has been under condemnation (Pres. Benson repeating D&C 84:55-57) which has kept us from receiving many insights into the mysteries of the Kingdom.  But recently there has been an expanding of knowledge.  The first 170 years of the Church's existence has been for the sole purpose of creating an obedient people.

• As much light and knowledge that we've been given above mainstream Christianity, when taking a step back (or a closer look as you please) we discover that we haven't been given very much more really.  But it seems that lately we've been given a much greater understanding of principles that have never been addressed in decades and centuries past.
• So many in the faith do not have a sound understanding of the basic principles we've openly been given.  But we now come across so many more who have a deep understanding of the gospel.

I'm not sure if I agree with those statements.  But he had recounted anecdotes where he had noticed it.  One of them was his father who was much older than either of us, told him that he had noticed it.  So many youth and 20-somethings have so much more understanding of the gospel than those his father knew in his younger years.

Then just yesterday, I was substitute teaching the 11-year-olds.  I remember being 11.  I remember the class we were in.  The whole class had a sound understanding of the BASICS of the plan of salvation.

• When someone said "plan of salvation" we immediately thought of the circles for pre-existence, earth, spirit world, and three degrees + outer darkness.
• When someone asked what "salvation" meant, we knew it meant (and this varied) some sort of good thing at the end.
• When asked what Jesus did that made our salvation possible, we knew the answer was "The Atonement." 

But when I was teaching this 11-y.o. class, I was shocked and disappointed in this class of 7 children, only one of them knew what I meant when I said "The Three Degrees of Glory".  And only that same student could actually name them, none other.  Again, apart from the one student, no one knew what the atonement entailed.  Only one knew that the Atonement of Christ was what made salvation possible.

I don't know if they are always that way or if they were simply tired or distracted.  I asked if anyone remembered if anyone had taught any of this in previous classes.  They looked around at each other as if they didn't know.  The one child mentioned that they had taught this same lesson for the past several years.  OK.  At least we're doing our part to teach.  Why weren't the kids learning?

Edited January 15, 2018 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

57 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I had a very thought provoking discussion with a friend of mine the other day.  I'd like to highlight the thoughts for discussion.

1) The reason for Blacks and the Priesthood Ban was because the Church didn't have proper resources to expand into Africa until we did.  If more blacks were not only baptized, but ordained, there would have been so many of them that wanted to go on missions to Africa, that the church's resources would have been depleted. And we'd be unable to support them there.  Some holes in this theory.  But it does have some merits as well.

2) The Church membership has been under condemnation (Pres. Benson repeating D&C 84:55-57) which has kept us from receiving many insights into the mysteries of the Kingdom.  But recently there has been an expanding of knowledge.  The first 170 years of the Church's existence has been for the sole purpose of creating an obedient people.

• As much light and knowledge that we've been given above mainstream Christianity, when taking a step back (or a closer look as you please) we discover that we haven't been given very much more really.  But it seems that lately we've been given a much greater understanding of principles that have never been addressed in decades and centuries past.
• So many in the faith do not have a sound understanding of the basic principles we've openly been given.  But we now come across so many more who have a deep understanding of the gospel.

I'm not sure if I agree with those statements.  But he had recounted anecdotes where he had noticed it.  One of them was his father who was much older than either of us, told him that he had noticed it.  So few youth and 20-somethings have so much more understanding of the gospel than those his father knew in his younger years.

Then just yesterday, I was substitute teaching the 11-year-olds.  I remember being 11.  I remember the class we were in.  The whole class had a sound understanding of the BASICS of the plan of salvation.

• When someone said "plan of salvation" we immediately thought of the circles for pre-existence, earth, spirit world, and three degrees + outer darkness.
• When someone asked what "salvation" meant, we knew it meant (and this varied) some sort of good thing at the end.
• When asked what Jesus did that made our salvation possible, we knew the answer was "The Atonement." 

But when I was teaching this 11-y.o. class, I was shocked and disappointed in this class of 7 children, only one of them knew what I meant when I said "The Three Degrees of Glory".  And only that same student could actually name them, none other.  Again, apart from the one student, no one knew what the atonement entailed.  Only one knew that the Atonement of Christ was what made salvation possible.

I don't know if they are always that way or if they were simply tired or distracted.  I asked if anyone remembered if anyone had taught any of this in previous classes.  They looked around at each other as if they didn't know.  The one child mentioned that they had taught this same lesson for the past several years.  OK.  At least we're doing our part to teach.  Why weren't the kids learning?

I was taught my whole life starting in primary the plan of salvation. Now, 40 years later my understanding is alltogether different in many ways. Even when I was 20 I didnt really grasp it. So, Im not worried that 7-11 year olds dont know the plan of salvation.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I had a very thought provoking discussion with a friend of mine the other day.  I'd like to highlight the thoughts for discussion.

1. No way. You don't need to ban all African blacks from the Priesthood and temple just to avoid expanding into Africa.

2. I completely agree with President Benson's observation, but I think the idea that the first 170 years was solely to lead us to Year 171 is too facile.

I would not expect a typical Primary class of seven-year-olds to be able to recite doctrine on the degrees of glory on demand.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

1. No way. You don't need to ban all African blacks from the Priesthood and temple just to avoid expanding into Africa.

2. I completely agree with President Benson's observation, but I think the idea that the first 170 years was solely to lead us to Year 171 is too facile.

3. I would not expect a typical Primary class of seven-year-olds to be able to recite doctrine on the degrees of glory on demand.

1. Good point.

2. I'm still considering.

3. They were 11 y.o.  There were 7 of them.  I believe 11 y.o. should at least be able to name the three degrees of glory.  I believe 11 y.o. should at least be able to say that the Atonement included suffering in the Garden and the Crucifixion.

It's our central doctrine.  If 11 y.o. can't state some very basic points of the Atonement, then there's something wrong.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Guest

[Mike]

Quote

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

... The reason for Blacks and the Priesthood Ban was because ...

"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."  -- Race and the Priesthood, lds.org

I don't post this in order to suppress discussion, but merely to express my skepticism about the likelihood of finding a suitable explanation without an official pronouncement. Still I suppose that disabusing ourselves of erroneous explanations is useful.  

Edited January 15, 2018 by Mike

[seashmore]

I don't really have opinions on the first two, but you mentioned being a sub for the 11 year olds. Depending on their personalities, they may not have felt comfortable in sharing what they know with you or answering your questions. Maybe they weren't confident and were nervous about being called out on it. It may also have something to do with the way you asked them the questions. 

Personal observation with the under 18 crowd in my current branch (which is actually the majority of members) and comparison to the crowd I grew up with favors the knowledge of the current young 'uns. Of course, your mileage will vary. When my dad was SSP a few years ago, he mentioned checking in on one of the youth Sunday School classes to make sure they had a teacher. Lo and behold, there was no adult in the room, but one of the youth had taken leadership, started with a prayer and was leading a discussion from the CFM manual. This fall, our 15-17 year old class had no teacher, and if left to themselves, they would just sit and talk about boys (an all girl class).

Also, they've been inviting 8 year olds to the women's meeting for a few years (after combining the YW and RS meetings), which means those born after 2000 are getting more opportunities for real-time revelation from GAs than those born before 2000. Not to mention the addition of youth to the adult (Saturday night) sessions of stake conferences. Do you think that would be policy if the kiddos weren't prepared and/or mature enough to handle those meetings?

[JohnsonJones]

It has been so long since I was 11, I honestly cannot say exactly what I knew or did not know at that time...BUT...by the time I was twelve I had read all the standard works, knew the entire course of the plan of salvation (from pre-existence to the three degrees of glory), and some of the things people consider "deep doctrine" these days was actually openly taught to the youth in church.  Of course, as we see today, much of those ideas probably were more cultural than specifically doctrine, though at the time many of the ideas were taught as such.

It was not uncommon in my youth that those who were the age of twelve were expected to have read the Book of Mormon and be very familiar with the rest of the standard works. That doesn't mean everyone read the entirety of the Bible though, but we were encouraged to read it regularly (actually, we still are today, and the Book of Mormon, but I'm unsure that as many are doing so).

Later in life, there was an even stronger push to get the young people to read the Scriptures, with notable stories from Spencer W. Kimball

A young boy reads the entire bible

and of course the Statements of Ezra Taft Benson.

My impression is that your friend is a little off on some of their assumptions. I may have missed it, but which prophet stated that the church is no longer under the condemnation that Ezra Taft Benson proclaimed?  It may have happened, I don't recall it having occurred though. 

I think overall the LDS church is falling further and further into iniquity.  A few years ago a study was done regarding Seminary students and the Youth in the church.  It was found that (and this was a while ago) almost 25% of the youth of the church were falling into sin with the Law of Chastity (and we are not talking the lighter sins, but the heavier ones which I won't go into detail here, but want to clarify that these sins are the complete disregard for the law of chastity as to what we see in the world today).  In my own limited vision of what I see, I think this has only gotten worse.  I see many youth that are falling away far more rapidly, and many of those that are in the church seem to lack some of the basic knowledge that we knew as children.

Instead of expanding on beliefs, I see the church boiling down to basics, to try to at least guarantee that people understand the basic fundamentals of our religion, much less the more complex ideas.  I see that the church has a divorce rate similar to what the world's divorce rate is.  I see the LDS church having many members fall away for the most trivial things, but in higher numbers today than ever before.

That said, I think that those youth that are the strongest and brightest of our youth today may be stronger and brighter than those of my youth, or those when my kids were youths.  The world today is far more wicked and treacherous and it takes a far stronger individual to navigate those wild rapids and survive than it did when I was young, or even when my children were young.  I look at my grandchildren and I worry because of how dangerous the world is spiritually today.  I think it takes a VERY STRONG soul to withstand that.  I think we see the results of these extremely strong youth in the numbers that we see going to do youth baptisms in the temple, and participating in church activities, and going on missions.  I have noticed that there are those of the youth that are exceptionally strong.

But I think that there are many who are falling away from the church today as well.  I think many great and wondrous things are occurring, and even if the church is still under condemnation there may be individual members who have implemented the Book of Mormon in their lives fully and that condemnation does not apply to them specifically.  For them perhaps great knowledge is being attained, but for the church as a whole, I think there is a lot of misunderstandings of some of the most basic principles at times.

The eleven year olds I have seen in our wards would vary.  In talking with the twelve year olds in discussions (so a little older than 11) I honestly think it really boils down to the parents and how they teach their children.  There are some that I can tell have been taught very well by their parents and these children know the Book of Mormon, can talk about Church History, and know the plan of salvation inside and out.  On the otherhand there are those who have a tough time even identifying whether Nephi was a prophet, or at times, who the prophet yesteryears was (in otherwords, who Gordon B. Hinckley was, much less any other prophet), or who Brigham Young or any other prophets are besides the one that they see today, and Joseph Smith.  These same children seem to lack any knowledge of the plan of salvation, what the three degrees of glory are, or what the Sprit world is.  I know they are taught these things in primary (as they are in the manuals I am certain), but for some reason they do not seem to grasp them (and perhaps it is because they only get one hour in a year or several years to learn it). 

Now, obviously my personal experience is very limited, so it may be that things are occurring differently in the church as a whole, however in my experience, it does not seem that what your friend thinks is exactly what is occurring.  Hopefully this comes across, not as offensive, but merely my observations and thoughts in relation to what your friend stated.

Edited January 16, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[person0]

16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

1) The reason for Blacks and the Priesthood Ban was because the Church didn't have proper resources to expand into Africa until we did.  If more blacks were not only baptized, but ordained, there would have been so many of them that wanted to go on missions to Africa, that the church's resources would have been depleted. And we'd be unable to support them there.  Some holes in this theory.  But it does have some merits as well.

I think this is way off.  I don't think this is even fractionally a part of the reason.

I believe there was simply no instruction or additional revelation on the matter, so the Brethren simply decided to act in what they deemed to be the 'safest' way based on the fact that they were unsure and had not yet received further light on the matter.  Eventually revelation came, but not until much later.  Sometimes, when you don't know what to do, and you don't feel a pressing need to do something about it, you do nothing, until the need arises.

I acknowledge there could certainly be more to it from the Lord's perspective, but I certainly believe this was a primary factor for the origin of this practice on man's side of things.

[Mike]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

I think this is way off.  I don't think this is even fractionally a part of the reason.

I believe there was simply no instruction or additional revelation on the matter, so the Brethren simply decided to act in what they deemed to be the 'safest' way based on the fact that they were unsure and had not yet received further light on the matter.  Eventually revelation came, but not until much later.  Sometimes, when you don't know what to do, and you don't feel a pressing need to do something about it, you do nothing, until the need arises.

I acknowledge there could certainly be more to it from the Lord's perspective, but I certainly believe this was a primary factor for the origin of this practice on man's side of things.

I would like to understand the last part of your remarks above. Are you saying the absence of a feeling of a pressing need to do something was a primary factor for the origin of the Priesthood ban? Or that it was a primary factor for the perpetuation of the ban? Or something else?

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Mike said:

I would like to understand the last part of your remarks above. Are you saying the absence of a feeling of a pressing need to do something was a primary factor for the origin of the Priesthood ban? Or that it was a primary factor for the perpetuation of the ban? Or something else?

The way I interpreted his words was: The Lord instituted it without explanation.  Man tried to explain it the best he could but obeyed even without knowing why.  And without knowing why they could not undo it when the time was right -- i.e. when they clearly saw that the reason no longer existed.  So they had to wait for the Lord to tell them when it was time.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Guest

[person0]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

I would like to understand the last part of your remarks above. Are you saying the absence of a feeling of a pressing need to do something was a primary factor for the origin of the Priesthood ban? Or that it was a primary factor for the perpetuation of the ban? Or something else?

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The way I interpreted his words was: The Lord instituted it without explanation.  Man tried to explain it the best he could but obeyed even without knowing why.  And without knowing why they could not undo it when the time was right -- i.e. when they clearly saw that the reason no longer existed.  So they had to wait for the Lord to tell them when it was time.

Yup.  Pretty much!

On another note, I recently saw a show where a group of individuals were each asked to deliver something without opening it.  After pressing to know what was in it, the response given was, "You don't want to know."  Two of them opened their item during the journey and were immediately placed in a state of unconsciousness, by the effects of the item itself.  Ultimately, knowing what the item was became more detrimental than completing their mission unaware would have been.  Neither of those two individuals were ultimately able to complete the mission as a result.

Has anyone ever considered that if we actually had an official reason given by the Lord, that the true reason might cause more problems than simply not knowing?

[Mike]

16 minutes ago, person0 said:

Has anyone ever considered that if we actually had an official reason given by the Lord, that the true reason might cause more problems than simply not knowing?

I confess that I have never considered that an official reason would cause more problems than not knowing. Can you cite a real historical situation where an official reason from the Lord caused more problems? Also, I am very curious to learn the name of the show.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Mike said:

Can you cite a real historical situation where an official reason from the Lord caused more problems?

How many times are we told that we cannot receive any further light and knowledge than we are prepared to receive?  Why is that?  To protect us.

[person0]

38 minutes ago, Mike said:

Can you cite a real historical situation where an official reason from the Lord caused more problems?

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the only way to know for sure that it happened would be if the Lord were to reveal that it happened.  Luckily for us, I know of one situation where he did tell us about this happening:

Quote

But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

And now I, Jacob, am led on by the Spirit unto prophesying; for I perceive by the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that by the stumbling of the Jews they will reject the stone upon which they might build and have safe foundation.

(Jacob 4: 14-15) emphasis added

[zil]

49 minutes ago, Mike said:

Can you cite a real historical situation where an official reason from the Lord caused more problems?

"Here is wisdom, and it remaineth in me..." (or words along those lines).

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

I confess that I have never considered that an official reason would cause more problems than not knowing. Can you cite a real historical situation where an official reason from the Lord caused more problems? 

You mean, like, when He rejected Cain’s sacrifice?

It’s also amusing to think what might have happened if God told Nephi that the reason he needed to duplicate his writings was because two thousand years in the future, Joseph Smith was going to lose half of Nephi’s writings . . . I have a feeling Nephi had a hard time showing patience for the human weaknesses of others.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Rob Osborn]

49 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have a feeling Nephi had a hard time showing patience for the human weaknesses of others.

Really, how so?

[Fether]

21 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I had a very thought provoking discussion with a friend of mine the other day.  I'd like to highlight the thoughts for discussion.

1) The reason for Blacks and the Priesthood Ban was because the Church didn't have proper resources to expand into Africa until we did.  If more blacks were not only baptized, but ordained, there would have been so many of them that wanted to go on missions to Africa, that the church's resources would have been depleted. And we'd be unable to support them there.  Some holes in this theory.  But it does have some merits as well.

2) The Church membership has been under condemnation (Pres. Benson repeating D&C 84:55-57) which has kept us from receiving many insights into the mysteries of the Kingdom.  But recently there has been an expanding of knowledge.  The first 170 years of the Church's existence has been for the sole purpose of creating an obedient people.

• As much light and knowledge that we've been given above mainstream Christianity, when taking a step back (or a closer look as you please) we discover that we haven't been given very much more really.  But it seems that lately we've been given a much greater understanding of principles that have never been addressed in decades and centuries past.
• So many in the faith do not have a sound understanding of the basic principles we've openly been given.  But we now come across so many more who have a deep understanding of the gospel.

I'm not sure if I agree with those statements.  But he had recounted anecdotes where he had noticed it.  One of them was his father who was much older than either of us, told him that he had noticed it.  So many youth and 20-somethings have so much more understanding of the gospel than those his father knew in his younger years.

Then just yesterday, I was substitute teaching the 11-year-olds.  I remember being 11.  I remember the class we were in.  The whole class had a sound understanding of the BASICS of the plan of salvation.

• When someone said "plan of salvation" we immediately thought of the circles for pre-existence, earth, spirit world, and three degrees + outer darkness.
• When someone asked what "salvation" meant, we knew it meant (and this varied) some sort of good thing at the end.
• When asked what Jesus did that made our salvation possible, we knew the answer was "The Atonement." 

But when I was teaching this 11-y.o. class, I was shocked and disappointed in this class of 7 children, only one of them knew what I meant when I said "The Three Degrees of Glory".  And only that same student could actually name them, none other.  Again, apart from the one student, no one knew what the atonement entailed.  Only one knew that the Atonement of Christ was what made salvation possible.

I don't know if they are always that way or if they were simply tired or distracted.  I asked if anyone remembered if anyone had taught any of this in previous classes.  They looked around at each other as if they didn't know.  The one child mentioned that they had taught this same lesson for the past several years.  OK.  At least we're doing our part to teach.  Why weren't the kids learning?

I always reconciled blacks and the priesthood this way. The priesthood was first in a family, then to the levites, then to all Christians, then the gospel was expanded to all gentiles, then the priesthood offered to blacks. From the start of time the gospel had been restricted to a small group of people and had slowly grown.

I believe we are all under condemnation to some degree. Any type of sin will do that. Condemnation does not mean God is massively angry. I feel like God loves me unconditionally and for all the great good I have done, but I’m also under condemnation for what I fail to do. So saying the church is under condemnation is not that impressive of a statement.

Sometimes we understand things but putting them into words is difficult. If you had asked me what a covenant was 6 years ago, I would struggle to define it. But if you asked me to explain baptism and the promises involved, I could in a heart beat. That being said, MANY families in the church do not have FHE and the only time they learn about gospel is for 3 hours at church each week. So it isn’t surprising some do not know. I noticed growing up that 20% of my classmates answered 80% of the questions. The other 80% of class members were answering questions like “Did Nephi have faith?”. PS I was in that 80%

[SpiritDragon]

On 1/15/2018 at 2:32 PM, Carborendum said:

2) The Church membership has been under condemnation (Pres. Benson repeating D&C 84:55-57) which has kept us from receiving many insights into the mysteries of the Kingdom.  But recently there has been an expanding of knowledge.  The first 170 years of the Church's existence has been for the sole purpose of creating an obedient people.

I was going to comment with an excerpt from an interpreter article dealing with the issue of condemnation, but the section would be quite large to get enough to do it justice...

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/dissenters-portraying-the-church-as-wrong-so-they-can-be-right-without-it/  So for those who don't mind a little reading (or listening, audio is available) have at it.

Essentially the article goes into how enemies of the church like to try to use the church being under condemnation as reason to show that an institution the church has failed. In all fairness, President Benson, is certainly not referring to the condemnation in the same way. Instead, he seems to simply be showing that we are leaving blessings behind by not taking the Book of Mormon more seriously in our every-day life. I'm sure creating an obedient people is an important function of the Church, but I can't personally get behind the idea that it has been the sole purpose. Obedience alone doesn't have the power to save. The Lord requires the heart, and His people require ordinances via true priesthood authority. The work and glory of God is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man, not to merely bring about the obedience of man, albeit obedience to the laws upon which blessings are predicated is clearly essential.

On 1/15/2018 at 2:32 PM, Carborendum said:

• As much light and knowledge that we've been given above mainstream Christianity, when taking a step back (or a closer look as you please) we discover that we haven't been given very much more really.  But it seems that lately we've been given a much greater understanding of principles that have never been addressed in decades and centuries past.

I suppose to the crowd that subscribes to simplifying the gospel back down to simply being a message of loving one's neighbour. What of the wondrous blessings of understanding priesthood keys, the mission and role of Elijah the prophet, understanding the priesthood of Melchizedek, salvation and exaltation prospects for the disembodied spirits not given the opportunity to receive the gospel? The restored gospel sheds light on so many biblical passages that would otherwise be confusing or forgotten. Consider that the Book of Mormon doesn't say anything about work for the dead, but the new testament speaks of baptisms for the dead and the Saviour teaching spirits in prison. These passages are inconvenient to explain without the restored gospel to clarify the greater picture of what is taking place. I can't really imagine what greater understanding is being spoken of either, It appears to me the other way around. I suppose things like chastity have been taught more explicitly than ever before, largely because I think in the past to go into too much detail the fear was to create problems in innocents who hadn't contemplated such things, but now there is so much access to immorality and google serves as a teacher of so much, that the risk of not being explicit is out-weighed by the risk of not learning about these things early in a wholesome context.I don't know if that's what is being implied by the above quotation though.

On 1/15/2018 at 2:32 PM, Carborendum said:

• So many in the faith do not have a sound understanding of the basic principles we've openly been given.  But we now come across so many more who have a deep understanding of the gospel.

I don't see this in my sphere of association of generations past and present. There have always been those who are well immersed in the gospel and understand it well and those who go to church but have never taken the time to really understand the scriptures and doctrines of the church beyond the most simplistic level.

 

[mordorbund]

11 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Essentially the article goes into how enemies of the church like to try to use the church being under condemnation as reason to show that an institution the church has failed.

If you don't mind me asking, How's your family doing?

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with @SpiritDragon.  In its broadest sense, “condemnation” is simply the status of living below our privileges—we naturally seek to transcend it; but to some degree it’s a natural consequence of mankind’s fallen state.  If the Church weren’t under some form of condemnation, we’d all be having this conversation in Jackson County, Missouri.  

So sure, we’re under condemnation and we need to do better.  It’s not a surprise, and it’s no reason to panic.  I also agree that, speaking anecdotally, it seems that most of those who spend a lot of time wringing their hands over whether the Church is “under condemnation” usually have an agenda of some sort.  

When we’re trying to gauge the spirituality of lay church members by judging the way they do or don’t engage with the questions in the Sunday School curriculum, I think we need to bear in mind that a) many of those questions demand deeply intimate responses that prople may not be willing to give in a classroom setting; b) many more of those questions are just plain poorly drafted; and c) even more questions are so basic as to be manipulative and/or an insult to the intelligence of the class members.  I don’t blame the LDS curriculum committee for this—they’ve got a very tough job; and getting people to open up and have a meaningful discussion about religion is more art than science.  But I guess my takeaway is—give the Church membership a little credit for doctrinal savvy.  That Pew survey from a couple years ago suggests that we’re doing better than we think we are, and certainly better than most of our Christian cousins are doing.

[zil]

56 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

prople

At first, I thought this would be a good character name:

Amaya: "Hi, Prople, is your wife home?"

Prople: "She's out back in the garden."

But then I thought, no, this sounds like an annoying government functionary:

Amaya: "Have you heard?  The King of Dimwittia just appointed a new Prople for the province of North Enharsis."

Either way, if I ever name something "Prople", I'll be sure to give you an honorable mention.

[Guest]

In the vein of the rising generations being given more light and knowledge:

Today, my 6 yo was given an assignement for a talk in Primary for next week.  The monthly theme as you know is The Earth Was Created for Heavenly Father’s Children.

So, we began putting a talk together.  My 6 yo began telling me the plan of salvation and the role of the earth in it.

It was only recently I read the following article:

https://www.lds.org/manual/2018-outline-for-sharing-time/february?lang=eng

Yup, he pretty much covered it.  Amazing.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Guest

[Sunday21]

I have no idea about blacks and the priesthood. A complete mystery to me. I have looked through FAIR and read Michael Ash’s shaken faith. Nothing! I wonder if God is punishing the membership? Did we do something aweful? No clue! Perhaps the humiliation of the ban is an Abrahmic trial of our faith? 

[Guest]

On 2/4/2018 at 6:42 PM, Sunday21 said:

I have no idea about blacks and the priesthood. A complete mystery to me. I have looked through FAIR and read Michael Ash’s shaken faith. Nothing! I wonder if God is punishing the membership? Did we do something aweful? No clue! Perhaps the humiliation of the ban is an Abrahmic trial of our faith? 

Sounds like as good an explanation as any other I've heard.