Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I spoke with a friend at the ward Xmass party Saturday night about the new priesthood disavowal. This friend is the only black man in our ward. He is a member of the high council. I asked him as I pointed to the 200 people sitting on the basketball court (I refuse to use the word culture), how many of these word members have read the lgs.org article. He said zero. I agreed. If you don’t live in SLC and get the SLTrib, there is no way the normal member will ever see this. The church has not announced it in the Ensign or Church News to my knowledge. Maybe that was the compromise to get the vote in the 12 to release it. BKP voted yes, but only for a “soft” release, no publicity, just a link buried on the web site. (Just my guess, no knowledge on this) DarkJedi wrote:John does refer to himself as the beloved.
Before you all dig too deep into the meaning of exactly what John is saying, remember that the Gospel of John was written c. 80-95 AD. Most scholars agree that John 21 was not part of the original manuscript, and it originally ended at John 20:31. So “the beloved disciple” was added by someone else. The unknown author of John probably used several sources to write the gospel. But the main fact is he was not even born when Jesus was crucified, and was going off several other people’s accounts.
cwald wrote:This recent statement about the priesthood ban, really, is validating my position…the position that cost me my standing within my family and church. Sure, TBM’s are not going to see it that way…but it’s there and eventually it will start to seep in. There is going to be some pain and more bleeding. It took the church 180 years of “obedience and prophet worship” doctrines to dig themselves into this mess. They can’t and will not be able to dig themselves out of this hole overnight.
Richard Bushman came to pretty much the same conclusion
Quote:
“It is written as a historian might tell the story,” Bushman says from his home in New York, “not as a theological piece, trying to justify the practice.”By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote “Rough Stone Rolling,” a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, “it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated.”
But accepting that, Bushman says, “requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking.”
Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, “it brings into question all of the prophet’s inspiration.”
I enjoy a good debate, something I can’t do at church or in my home with my wife. So I get it all out on the internet. This helps me “Stay LDS”. This is the last I’ll say on this subject
Quote:“President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet [Joseph] taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood, nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s offspring.”
(22 August 1895, Minutes of Meeting of General Authorities, in Joseph Fielding Smith, “The Way to Perfection” (1931), p. 110.)
_____
“President [George Q.] Cannon remarked upon this subject, as he said, he had on a prior occasion when this subject was under consideration, that he had understood that the Prophet Joseph [Smith] had said during this lifetime, that there would be a great wrong perpetrated if the seed of Cain were allowed to have the Priesthood before Abel should have posterity to receive it, and this curse therefore was to remain upon the seed of Cain until the time should come that Abel should have posterity. He understood that that time could not come until Abel should beget spirits in the eternal worlds and those spirits obtain tabernacles.”
(George Albert Smith Papers, Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library, University of Utah)
_____
“President Young held to the doctrine that no man tainted with Negro blood was eligible to have the Priesthood; that President Taylor held to the same doctrine, claiming to have been taught it by the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
(George Q. Cannon, Council Minutes, 22 August 1900.)
_____
“It is true that the Negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. the Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine.
(Joseph F. Smith, “Improvement Era,” [1924], 27, p. 564,)
_____
“I say the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will it be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those that are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good.
(Joseph Smith, “Messenger & Advocate,” 2, p. 290; “History of the Church,” 2, p. 438.)
_____
“The Prophet Joseph Smith was commanded by God to withdraw the Priesthood from Elijah Abel, and revoke the ordination. …
“Although there is no official Church record as to the revocation, Elijah Abel affirmed the fact to my father, Thomas A. Shreeve, when both were living in the Salt Lake 10th Ward, during 1872-77. At the time, Brother Abel told young Thomas, who baptised Abel’s grandchildren that the Prophet Joseph ‘came to him with tears in his eyes one day, and told him that he had been commanded by the Lord to withdraw the holy Priesthood from him.'”
(Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr,, “Salt Lake Tribune,” “Forum”, 26 October 1970)
_____
“Brother Coltrin further said Brother Abel was ordained a Seventy . . . and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place.
(Meeting, 31 May 1879, as related by Willian E. Berrett, “Mormonism and the Negro”)
Old-Timer wrote:Joseph, himself, had nothing to do with the ban, and
his actions had to be ignored in order to justify it. That is not what the FP and Q12 said in 1968.
Quote:From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.
Who do we believe, a undated and unattributed posting on lds.org , or a signed and dated FP letter?
SilentDawning wrote:Not sure what you mean by this portion ” was only showing that even in the steps they took to put this behind them, they still couldn’t get the whole truth. They still wobbled on the truth to preserve Joseph Smith’s reputation. That’s all I was pointing out.”
Yes, I was less than clear. In an effort by the FP and Q12 to put this whole race issue behind them, and issue the statement on LDS.org, they still couldn’t tell the whole truth. The LDS.org statement says it was not doctrine, was made up by BY, and was a mistake (my paraphrasing). My post was only to show that it was instituted by JS, it was considered doctrine. They take one step forward (posting the issue on LDS.org) and two steps backward by not being complete truthful about what happened.
mom3 wrote:For me – I want to let go of the past. Not just forget it, but forgive it.
Ok, then let’s forget and forgive all the mistakes from past prophets. But what about the current prophets? They are the ones that put out the words that said this was NOT taught by JS, but was purely made up by BY. I was only showing that even in the steps they took to put this behind them, they still couldn’t get the whole truth. They still wobbled on the truth to preserve Joseph Smith’s reputation. That’s all I was pointing out.
How do you all interpret the following letter from the FP, written in our life time (well, most of us old guys anyway). This letter clearly states that it originated with God, and ALL prophets (JS included) have taught it.
Quote:
15 December 1968,To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.
Dear Brethren:
In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.
A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.
From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.
Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, ‘The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God. . . . ‘Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.’ President McKay has also said, ‘Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.’
Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner
VikingCompass wrote:Not taking roll isn’t an option.
Yes it is for SS. In my current calling as ward clerk, I fill out the quarterly report. There is nothing on that report about SS attendance. There is sacrament meeting attendance, Priesthood/RS attendance, and primary. Some wards do take SS attendance, but it is only used internally, and not in any reports.
When I was called as Bishop, I told my SP that I had some problems with the historical aspects of the BofM. He said that was not part of the TR questions, and I was worthy to be bishop. Also, since a baby blessing is not a saving ordnance, just do it yourself with your family at home. It won’t be recorded “on the records of the church”, but will be just as effective in providing the comfort for your family.
mackay11 wrote:I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to take it so literally.
Maybe because it says in the introduction to the BofA:
Quote:
TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITHA Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. – The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus
Do you think that might have something to do with it????
conflicted testimony wrote:Physically, not much has changed other than we now have weekends free and an extra night through the week that was for Youth.
You also get a 10% raise!
Studies showfrom the link above
Quote:One study concluded that adolescents required 9.2 hours of sleep a night for best daytime functioning
So lets do the math. Here where I live, Early Morning Seminary starts at 6 am. So kids have to wake at 5 to get ready and be there by 6. Nine hours would require them to be asleep by 8 pm the night before. How is that going to work????? If they are a good TBM they are at Scouts/YW at least one night a week until way after 8 pm. And then there are after school sports, homework, etc. Early morning seminary has no payoff except for getting into BYU. I was SO GLAD when my youngest daughter turned 16 and could drive herself!
A brother in our ward once gave a talk, and mentioned how their family had two kids quite late in life. His biggest regret was that he was going to be driving to Seminary at age 64!
Kumahito wrote:Very interesting Ray. Not sure it’ll help the Apologists at all, though. First, it’s 24,000 years old. Noah’s flood hadn’t even happened yet!
Wait, there were people in the Americas before Noah’s flood? What happened to them? Did they drown, or in the immortal words of Bill Cosby, “tread water”?
