tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post7026289522817726856..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Quoted in USA Today on the Issue of Romney and Anti-Mormon BiasJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger165125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85401612795450036702011-12-09T21:53:28.022-06:002011-12-09T21:53:28.022-06:00It would be odd for him to pretend that the BYU au...<i>It would be odd for him to pretend that the BYU auditorium was full of Jewish agnostics.</i><br /><br />Indeed. But my point was that instead of making "some good points," Givens was merely preaching to the converted. He was making an argument persuasive only to those who already agreed with him.<br /><br />Actually, it would have been GOOD for Givens to pretend he was addressing a more skeptical audience. It might have prompted him to offer up something that actually made sense. Preaching to the converted can lead to intellectual laziness.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-69402759750346543142011-12-09T21:03:06.857-06:002011-12-09T21:03:06.857-06:00mkprr;
"It would be odd for him to pretend t...mkprr;<br /><br />"It would be odd for him to pretend that the BYU auditorium was full of Jewish agnostics."<br /><br />LOL! That was funny.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76832454610945423492011-12-09T19:31:32.652-06:002011-12-09T19:31:32.652-06:00Using extremes can be unfair, but it can also be u...Using extremes can be unfair, but it can also be useful for describing general principles. Are you thinking it is dishonest for him to talk about two views of scripture without also describing in detail every other possible view?<br /><br /><br />Of course he is tailoring his remarks to address his audience. It would be odd for him to pretend that the BYU auditorium was full of Jewish agnostics. He addresses this and other topics on mormonstories.org to a more critical audience if you are interested in listening. <br /><br /> What I get out of his talk overall is that faith becomes a moral decision when there are reasonable arguments to both (or multiple) sides of an issue, and we then choose the view that stretches our capacity to do good rather than a view that is more base. <br /><br />If you read the entire talk, he does go into a fair amount of detail into a number of the doctrines he is showcasing. If he had specifically addressed gold plates and narrow necks of land in this short 1 paragraph excerpt instead of the general principle of faith you would have been happier I presume?mkprrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13409950642803422998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70168658281349954592011-12-09T16:23:56.199-06:002011-12-09T16:23:56.199-06:00Terryl Givens is a smart guy, but his "ass of...Terryl Givens is a smart guy, but his "ass of Buridan" argument is junk, for two reasons:<br /><br />1.) It poses a false dichotomy. There are more possibilities than just "modern scriptures as so much fabulous fiction" and "His word and will...made manifest through a sacred canon that is never definitively closed." A third possibility: the Book of Mormon and other modern scriptures might also be a manifestation of Joseph Smith's very human desire to make his native land part of the Judeo-Christian sacred story. There are more than two possibilities here.<br /><br />2.) It asserts there's a balance between the two sides when in fact there is not. After positing the false dichotomy, Givens writes that there is "nothing to compel an individual’s preference for one over the other." But actually the evidence is overwhelmingly against the authenticity of the LDS Scriptures. The only people who think otherwise are those already committed by their faith. (You'll notice that Givens floated this argument at BYU, that is, before an already committed audience.)<br /><br />I would add finally that Givens is using the old trick of confusing the belief in some kind of vague cosmic being with the belief in a very specific and much less defensible set of beliefs about things like gold plates and narrow necks of land.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36227460221632154512011-12-09T14:12:45.153-06:002011-12-09T14:12:45.153-06:00Why would God reward the faithful over the skeptic...Why would God reward the faithful over the skeptical?<br /><br />I think Terryl Givens made some good points on this question. I'm ruining his response by only quoting a little bit of it but I suggest reading this talk, especially the second half of it: http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=10924&x=55&y=7<br /><br />here is an excerpt:<br /><br />"I believe that we are—as reflective, thinking, pondering seekers—much like the proverbial ass of Buridan. If you remember, the beast starved to death because he was faced with two equally desirable and equally accessible piles of hay. Having no determinative reason to choose one over the other, he perished in indecision. In the case of us mortals, men and women are confronted with a world in which there are appealing arguments for God as a childish projection, for modern prophets as scheming or deluded imposters, and for modern scriptures as so much fabulous fiction. But there is also compelling evidence that a glorious divinity presides over the cosmos, that God calls and anoints prophets, and that His word and will are made manifest through a sacred canon that is never definitively closed. There is, as with the ass of Buridan, nothing to compel an individual’s preference for one over the other. But in the case of us mortals, there is something to tip the scale. There is something to predispose us to a life of faith or a life of unbelief. There is a heart that in these conditions of equilibrium and balance—and only in these conditions of equilibrium and balance, equally “enticed by the one or the other” (2 Nephi 2:16)—is truly free to choose belief or cynicism, faith or faithlessness."mkprrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13409950642803422998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65579405485694080462011-12-09T13:56:13.985-06:002011-12-09T13:56:13.985-06:00Crazypoliticos
That was a thought provoking comme...Crazypoliticos <br />That was a thought provoking comment. I think its interesting that true religion is only defined, as far as I know, once in the Bible. And It says nothing about theology. James 1:26-27mkprrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13409950642803422998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18975412730017553812011-12-09T11:55:06.570-06:002011-12-09T11:55:06.570-06:00I should state for the record I'm rather fond ...I should state for the record I'm rather fond of Jesus. To me the heart of Christianity lies with its advocacy of simple relief work not with its doctrinal assertions. The one universal constant that Jesus closely identified with was suffering and deprivation. Jesus even comes right out and says that our treatment of the poor and suffering reflects directly on how we would treat Jesus. If you are a true Christian you may want to consider the reason the poor are always among us is to give you as a Christian, the opportunity to practice your Christianity. Suffering and death are the universal constants. Everybody experiences these two things. And pretty much everybody is in a position to help someone else deal with the consequences of these two universal constants. The suffering, deprivation and death of others has to be a huge clue about the nature of God and what he expects from us. And we all suffer. Everyone has reason to be afraid. In Jesus's paradigm a Christian is always in one of two states, receiving assistance or rendering it. It is simple to intuit the Gospel of Christ from the world we live in. Death alone teaches us that if we are simply living for ourselves and not for the benefit of others we are on a fool's errand. Consider the possibility that the only reason other people suffer and go without is to draw you our of your narcissistic self and to see the suffering of others as your own. Perhaps the only reason you suffer is to draw others out of themselves. I know my suffering has provided the opportunity for other's to grow. Death means in the end you have to move out and give it all away. What a relief. Jesus would tell you to just feed others and have faith you are providing others the opportunity to feed you. If you put others first you will have a whole fan club of people who put you first. Faith is giving yourself away and believing you'll still exist.crazypoliticoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13495453980550817063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4346032168115169492011-12-09T10:02:52.216-06:002011-12-09T10:02:52.216-06:00I have had experiences that I feel were true revel...<i>I have had experiences that I feel were true revelation and inspiration.</i><br /><br />So did Mohammed.<br /><br />Why should I believe you and not Mohammed?<br /><br />How do I distinguish between the true experience and the false? Please advise.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-69640167503480033022011-12-09T09:34:05.212-06:002011-12-09T09:34:05.212-06:00"If I have a personal, subjective emotional e..."If I have a personal, subjective emotional experience that I interpret as God speaking to me, then whatever my subjective religious experience tells me to do, I do it."<br /><br />I think you're trivializing what an actual communication from Diety would be like. Your statement really is based off the presumption that God does not speak with individuals. Or you're presuming that because some people have experiences like the one you describe (which may or may not be inspiration), that is a one-size-fits-all method of revelation. I don't agree with it. I have had experiences that I feel were true revelation and inspiration and defining it by your description would be vastly inaccurate. I should not that not many people would be willing to sacrifice their son based on a subjective feeling.<br />Your paradigm also ignores more tangible interactions with God that prophets have claimed to have, like the First Vision. I would imagine that speaking with God face to face might not be so subjective.Lamdaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550528525997628134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67547436363967388112011-12-09T07:41:14.634-06:002011-12-09T07:41:14.634-06:00Darren, according to the Bible, God once suggested...Darren, according to the Bible, God once suggested doing something that Abraham considered immoral. Abraham objected, saying that what God was about to do struck him (Abraham) as immoral and that God should not do it. Abraham then convinced God to back down.<br /><br />I read this as a parable telling us that, among other things, morality is not the same thing as "whatever God says," and that we must have our own moral compass and we must trust it, even when the ultimate authority tempts us not to trust it. In other words, it's not just Satan that can tempt us into immorality; God can do it too.<br /><br />2.) How do you know that the person telling you to do stuff is actually God? It seems to me that you and I, we're not Moses seeing God directly. In practice, your moral code is not "If God says it, do it." Your moral code is "If I THINK God says it, do it. If I have a personal, subjective emotional experience that I interpret as God speaking to me, then whatever my subjective religious experience tells me to do, I do it."<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81599992859747113522011-12-08T22:26:30.396-06:002011-12-08T22:26:30.396-06:00"Wow"
The thought of God knowing more t..."Wow"<br /><br />The thought of God knowing more than you, Eveningsun, about morality put me in awe as well. ;)Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43685808118774876962011-12-08T22:11:27.417-06:002011-12-08T22:11:27.417-06:00Wow.
-- EveningsunWow.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80254966158531637922011-12-08T22:02:53.760-06:002011-12-08T22:02:53.760-06:00"If in one situation God commands us that &qu..."If in one situation God commands us that "Thou shalt not kill," and a generation later, in another situation, God commands us that "Thou shalt kill all the Canaanite women and children," to me that's situational ethics or moral relativism. But to you it's moral absolutism, because (if I understand you correctly) the supreme moral absolute is obedience to God."<br /><br />If god says do it than so it. it's that simple. God knows morals far better than me andI suppose far betterthan you as well. So, once again, if God sas to do t than do it.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-30571625067339184822011-12-08T21:49:16.960-06:002011-12-08T21:49:16.960-06:00Darren, if I understand you correctly, you're ...Darren, if I understand you correctly, you're basically saying "If God commands it, it's moral."<br /><br />If in one situation God commands us that "Thou shalt not kill," and a generation later, in another situation, God commands us that "Thou shalt kill all the Canaanite women and children," to me that's situational ethics or moral relativism. But to you it's moral absolutism, because (if I understand you correctly) the supreme moral absolute is obedience to God.<br /><br />But obedience to authority is not the same thing as morality. If you define morality as obedience, you have defined away the idea of morality itself. The concept of morality is inseparable from the exercise of genuine moral choice. But in your scheme, one makes an initial choice to always obey God, no matter how incredibly violent and seemingly unjust his commands might be, and from that moment forward one just lets God make all the choices.<br /><br />That seems pretty scary to me. Given God's record of violence and slaughter in the Hebrew scriptures, I wouldn't trust the guy for a moment.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54890023632748173132011-12-08T12:39:23.923-06:002011-12-08T12:39:23.923-06:00"Why would God reward the faithful over the s..."Why would God reward the faithful over the skeptical."<br /><br />Plato was skeptical and look what happend tohim. ;)<br /><br /><i>10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.</i><br /><br />(D&C 82)<br /><br />God promises the faithful rewards, not the skeptical. I do not know of any divine expectation from God to be skeptical though He's been pretty clear to be faithful. Skepticism will not impart unto you divine truth. You, of course, may have doubts or concerns but keep an open mind and heart to listen to God's wn voice. Combine that with, prayer, pondering, scripture study, and doing good continually and that will open the gates of heaven unto you; not skepticism.<br /><br />"Darren, are you faithful? Have you seen any miracles?"<br /><br />I strive to be faithful though far from perfect. and, yes, I've seen many miracles. Did you recieve miracles based on your skepticism?<br /><br />"Skepticism is a good thing Darren and we shouldn't believe everything we hear or read. "<br /><br />Are you presuming I do? I hope not because you'd be far from the truth if you were making such a presumption. In fact, where did I ever post thatwe should "believe everything we hear or read"? I have taken the position to include the Holy Spirit to learn of God and the things of God.<br /><br />"I like the solid feel of being an empiricist. I feel grounded."<br /><br />Liberals are light minded fools andare all about "feeling". Good luck with that. Come to think of it, aren't we supposed to reject feeling and go strictly on logic?<br /><br />"First its the Resurrection then its "Gee, I'm sure I can win the lottery!""<br /><br />Huh???<br /><br />"I mean proving your God is a difficult task, don't get me wrong, it's a difficult proof, but I'm sure God could pull it off. "<br /><br />It's foolish to "prove" God. That's between you and the Creator.<br /><br />"It's like this, if I read the BOM all the way through and I got this inner testimony or whatever intuitive insight Mormons gain after reading and praying about the BOM I would completely disregard and discount it."<br /><br />Feeling is very much a part of the human experience. It is an intrical part of the nature of our divine creation. Reject it and you only reject the divine part which is you. <br /><br />"There are no easy answers to Salvation or anything else for that matter."<br /><br />But answers do exist. We need to learn them and to live them.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10111459389906939722011-12-08T12:20:09.419-06:002011-12-08T12:20:09.419-06:00Anonymous;
"And I find it laughable when peo...Anonymous;<br /><br />"And I find it laughable when people write posts criticizing nonbelievers for moral relativism when the Church itself has such a history of moral relativism.<br />"<br /><br />I find it laughable when non-Mormons wwrite as if they know more about my church than me. They may know more of a specific particular of my church but by an d large, not more about the church than me.<br /><br />"If someone wants to know the Church's stance on the morality of, say, interracial marriage or plural marriage, one has to ask, "Well, what period in the Church's history are we asking about? During some periods, interracial marriage was immoral, during others it was moral."<br /><br />When was interracial marriage taught as immoral? If a person decides he or she will only marry in his or her race, then are they being immoral? <br /><br />"During some periods, plural marriage was a necessity for exaltation, a moral imperative, during other periods it was considered immoral.""<br /><br />When plural marriage is authorized by God, it's not immoral. When it is not authorized by God then it is immoral.<br /><br />As a reward for his faithfulness, God blessed King David in the following manner: "7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." David got lots of wives as a blessing. Later, after David took that which was not his, Bathsheba, and had her husband killed, David was curse in losing his wives to an invading King (See 2 Samuel 12: 7-13). When women were given to David by the Lord, it was good. When he tok a woman not given to him by the Lord, nor ever authorized, David was cursed.<br /><br />"That is to say, basic LDS morality is relative to historical period." <br /><br />You'd have a point there except the fact that it is drected by God. The fact that the LDS Church gave up polygamy is historical and it was to protect the Church from prosecution (the Official Declaration even says as much), it wasstill given to the Church by God to give it up. The LDS Church did not give it up until this revelation was given. <br /><br />"It's not always and forever the same, it depends on the situation, which is the very essence of relativism."<br /><br />Again, don't take God out of the factor. And the principles in the Church's choices remain the same.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-90595928557204406162011-12-08T12:05:42.771-06:002011-12-08T12:05:42.771-06:00Be that as it may Darren, these miracles were clai...Be that as it may Darren, these miracles were claimed. Claiming something implies proof. The raising of Lazarus and the Resurrection are go a long way towards substantiating Christianity regardless of their intention. And again, you skip right over the question: Why would God reward the faithful over the skeptical. You have an individual duty to be "skeptical". Being skeptical is part of being a healthy human being. So why would God reward the faithful over the rigorously skeptical. Why is faith in the extraordinary and supernatural a better quality than requiring extraordinary proofs? Darren, are you faithful? Have you seen any miracles? I'm betting we're about even in the department. Skepticism is a good thing Darren and we shouldn't believe everything we hear or read. There is an insidious slippery slope to what you suggest. You start with believing the New Testament miracles, but where do you end? You live in a shadowy world where the laws of physics are "almost the laws of physics". I like the solid feel of being an empiricist. I feel grounded. First its the Resurrection then its "Gee, I'm sure I can win the lottery!" Its magical thinking and whatever God that exists I hope he doesn't favor the magical thinkers above the scientists and physicists. If God wants to talk directly to me he's going to have to do it on my level and make it real clear and then he's going to have to have a really good explanation as to why he's been playing hide and seek all these millennia. I mean proving your God is a difficult task, don't get me wrong, it's a difficult proof, but I'm sure God could pull it off. It's magical thinking people...magical thinking...you can't possibly accept it. It's like this, if I read the BOM all the way through and I got this inner testimony or whatever intuitive insight Mormons gain after reading and praying about the BOM I would completely disregard and discount it. Feelings just do not rise to the level of proof and neither does intuition. The rush to believe in God is just another way of ditching out on the existential dilemma. There are no easy answers to Salvation or anything else for that matter.crazypoliticoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13495453980550817063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2553654142202151082011-12-08T11:42:28.473-06:002011-12-08T11:42:28.473-06:00Eveningsun;
I correctly said, "are heirs to ...Eveningsun;<br /><br />I correctly said, "are heirs to the kingdom of God just as much as humans from any other race. This has never changed in LDS teachings."<br /><br />You replied: "Darren, this is false. Black people were denied Temple endowment and sealings." <br /><br />While you are correct in this denial, you, sir, are entirely incorrect in the results. The LDS Church has NEVER even claimedthat black's wikll be denied blessings in the eternities. In fact, I highly doubt you'd find any Church leader who said any such thing. <br /><br /><i>Smith goes on to say “if a Negro is baptized and remains true and loyal, he will enter the celestial kingdom.” But he also says, “but we cannot promise him that he will receive the priesthood.”</i><br /><br />That was from Joseph F. Smith and it reflects the Church's official belief regarding blacks. <br /><br />Besides, in LDS theology, the faithful should beengaged in providing work for those who were never abe to do them for themselves. These works are key to salvation and, for whatever reason which is not entirely known but perfectly exemplified even by the Savior Himself, must be done in mortality. This work, it is believed will continue throughout the Millenial reign of Christ on earth. In this sense *ALL* God's children will have the saving ordinances needed for salvation and exaltation before God. So, in this sense, NONE will be denied the blessings of the eternities so long as they d their part and God's grace and mercy raptures them up.<br /><br />"If Daddy left your brother $100,000 in his will and he left you only $50,000, you would both be heirs to his fortune, but you would not be heirs "just as much.""<br /><br />Nope, but if God leaves all His children all tha He has, would not His children be equal heirs? Would they not all be "joint heirs" with Christ?<br /><br />"Such a basic truth as fundamental equality of access to the spiritual fulfillment of one's divine nature ought to be a timeless and universal truth, but for the Church it was not."<br /><br />Not all thetribes of Isreal were allowed to perform temple duties equally. Were then certain tribes denied eternal blessings because of this? If so, then who? If not, then, why should any faithful child of God? <br /><br />"Such a basic truth as fundamental equality of access to the spiritual fulfillment of one's divine nature ought to be a timeless and universal truth"<br /><br />Spiritual fulfillment will be fulfilled to all. not necessarily as we want or we view as it "should be"; but it will. Not only has the LDS Church always taught that but it's the church which perhaps teaches this more than any other church. <br /><br />"Another truth that the Church once considered timeless and eternal was that plural marriage was necessary to achieve the highest degrees of exaltation. Not permissible, but necessary.<br /><br />This supposedly timeless and eternal truth has also changed."<br /><br />You're incorrect in that "plural" marriage was believed necessary. Celestial marriage, the "new and everlasting covenant", is necessary, but not plural marriage. <br /><br />"And I find it laughable when people write posts criticizing nonbelievers for moral relativism when the Church itself has such a history of moral relativism."<br /><br />Laugh all you want, sir. morality is not relative in the LDS Church. But I would like to know if you believe that morality has an affect of the lord's commands, particularly to prophecy?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-89644641355147154382011-12-08T07:45:20.851-06:002011-12-08T07:45:20.851-06:00Darren writes that black people "are heirs to...Darren writes that black people "are heirs to the kingdom of God <i>just as much</i> as humans from any other race. <i>This has never changed</i> in LDS teachings."<br /><br />Darren, this is false. Black people were denied Temple endowment and sealings. So how can you possibly say they were "heirs to the kingdom <i>JUST AS MUCH as anyone else</i>"?<br /><br />If Daddy left your brother $100,000 in his will and he left you only $50,000, you would both be heirs to his fortune, but you would not be heirs "just as much."<br /><br />And sure, black people receive endowment etc. <i>now</i>, but they weren't allowed to <i>then</i>. This fundamental doctrine has <i>changed</i>. Such a basic truth as fundamental equality of access to the spiritual fulfillment of one's divine nature ought to be a timeless and universal truth, but for the Church it was not. <br /><br />Another truth that the Church once considered timeless and eternal was that plural marriage was <i>necessary</i> to achieve the highest degrees of exaltation. Not permissible, but <i>necessary</i>.<br /><br />This supposedly timeless and eternal truth has also changed.<br /><br />These are the sorts of things I have in mind, Darren, when I say that timeless and universal truth is a rather slippery concept in the Church. And I find it laughable when people write posts criticizing nonbelievers for moral relativism when the Church itself has such a history of moral relativism.<br /><br />If someone wants to know the Church's stance on the morality of, say, interracial marriage or plural marriage, one has to ask, "Well, what period in the Church's history are we asking about? During some periods, interracial marriage was immoral, during others it was moral. During some periods, plural marriage was a necessity for exaltation, a moral imperative, during other periods it was considered immoral."<br /><br />That is to say, basic LDS morality is relative to historical period. It's not always and forever the same, it depends on the situation, which is the very essence of relativism.<br /><br />I would add that the LDS Church is not the only morally relativist church out there. The Southern Baptist Convention is infamous for its own once-racist theology, the Catholic Church for its anti-Semitism, etc.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70167886277300621322011-12-08T00:46:47.017-06:002011-12-08T00:46:47.017-06:00Eveningsun;
Yes, racism played a role in blacks n...Eveningsun;<br /><br />Yes, racism played a role in blacks not receiving the Priesthood. That is my view. <br /><br />As for "absolute and timeless divine truth to replace the old absolute and timeless divine truth", it was a change in policy. The timless and absolute truth you mentioned never changed. Blacks are children of God as are humans of any race. Blacks, therefore, are heirs to the kingdom of God just as much as humans from any other race. This has never changed in LDS teachings.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-78198584002572109142011-12-07T22:49:35.575-06:002011-12-07T22:49:35.575-06:00Darren's mental gymnastics here are fascinatin...Darren's mental gymnastics here are fascinating, but unnnecessary. It's really very simple, Darren. The exclusion of blacks from the priesthood was a racist policy implemented and sustained by a racist church leadership (beginning with the racist Brigham Young). Why should this be so hard to admit? The Church was not really any more racist than many other segments of American society (but it certainly wasn't any less so, either).<br /><br />Different parts of society justified their racism in different ways; one of the ways the Church did so was by invoking the Book of Abraham in order to resurrect the Hamitic theory. (This is basically what McConkie did in Mormon Doctrine, though he was hardly the first.)<br /><br />By the 1970s, the Church membership (like the rest of American society) was becoming less racist, and the exclusion was becoming more and more an embarrassment. The times were changing. It was time for a new absolute and timeless divine truth to replace the old absolute and timeless divine truth. Time for a revelation, which arrived a little late, perhaps, to avoid a lot of bad PR, but hey, gerontocracy has its drawbacks.<br /><br />Anyway, the Church changes with the times, just like other human institutions. And that's a good thing! Of course, in light of this little history, it's obvious that the Church is not quite the paragon of timeless and immutable truths it proclaims itself to be, but, again like all human institutions, the Church is prone at times to hypocritical self-aggrandizement. This too is vanity and vexation of spirit.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-51548517125331263732011-12-07T22:23:59.319-06:002011-12-07T22:23:59.319-06:00Anonymous;
You should also read, Dispelling the B...Anonymous;<br /><br />You should also read, <a href="http://www.blacklds.org/black_myth" rel="nofollow">Dispelling the Black Myth</a> by Renee olson. This is a pretty good take on the rationality from LDS members and leaders gave as to why the blacks could not receive the Priesthood and how wrong they were for doing so. This talk can also be found at the Maxwell Institute. This institute is run by top scholars of the LDS faith.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40162203420719814222011-12-07T22:20:05.268-06:002011-12-07T22:20:05.268-06:00Anonymous;
Here's a coupe links I mentioned. ...Anonymous;<br /><br />Here's a coupe links I mentioned. <br /><br />First, to repeat what I previously posted, here's <a href="http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood" rel="nofollow">Blacks and the Priesthood</a>. Also see <a href="http://www.blacklds.org/history" rel="nofollow">Black History Timeline</a>. this gives an excellent summation to blacks receiving the priesthood inthe LDS Church. And, to add to this, most of all, you should read, <a href="http://www.blacklds.org/declare2#thoughts" rel="nofollow">Thoughts and Events Leading up to the Declaration</a> when it was revealed that blacks may receive the Priesthood. I found this read from first-hand sources very powerful.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86223784731532810922011-12-07T21:53:04.361-06:002011-12-07T21:53:04.361-06:00"So you see those things as illogical ideas t..."So you see those things as illogical ideas to base morality on? If the only reason you can come to a decision on whether those things are things you find as "good" or "bad" is based on what you believe god thinks on the subject then it's a bit disheartenin"<br /><br />That's no disheartening, that's good and joyful. And when in the world did I say "the only reason". I hought I said, that on'es belief in God has "a direct affect" on one's choices. <br /><br />"Are you devoid of empathy and only capable of doing what you are commanded to do?"<br /><br />Man, you're soundng very presumptuous. In fact, the more I strive to come unto Christ, the more empathetic I become. Go figure.<br /><br />"if a cult leader demands that a child be sacrificed, and all that supports his demand is that "god commanded it!" '<br /><br />Listen to the Spirit and he'll tell you "don't do it". <br /><br />The rest of your post is based seems on the same presumptions so...<br /><br /><i>10 And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;</i><br /><br />(D&C 50)<br /><br />Take care Mateo and God bless.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39983088648723481022011-12-07T21:41:43.779-06:002011-12-07T21:41:43.779-06:00"That somehow, despite how crazy it all seems..."That somehow, despite how crazy it all seems and how much it seems like L Ron Hubbard was making it all up to take advantage of others or appeared self delusional, that aliens were actually beaming that information into his head with some advanced techonology that we don't understand (sound crazy?"<br /><br />The irony here in using Hubbard as an example is that he was a writer of fiction. <br /><br />Yes, it is *possible* that hubbard was right. Do you think he was right? i don't. Do I get spiritual promptings that he was right? Nope. I'm sure I can cglean through Scientologist doctrines and find points where I agree upon but is it God's true gospel? I don't think so. Do you?<br /><br />"It's possible, but it's EXTREMELY improbable. So improbable that I have no issue dismissing it.'<br /><br />I don't intimately care if you accept it or dismiss it. All I encourage you to do is to follow what you honestly think and feel is the truth. Scientifically-speaking, Christ resurrecting Himself fromthe dead is highly improbable but I fuly embrace it as 100% reality and place absolute hope in it.<br /><br />"Basically as human beings we seem to have no way of gaining absolute certainty of something."<br /><br />I'd agree tha we do not start out knowing with absolute certainty and this is recisely why we ***MUST*** act based, at least in somer part, on faith until we know of 100% certainty. I do not care what aspect of ife we are talking about, there's always at least an ounce of faith excercised in order to act. In terms of God, we can know that he's real with 100% certainty but it will never happen until "after the trial of [our] faith".<br /><br />"Stating that you KNOW it to be true is a very different thing."<br /><br />Mateo, I KNOW that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is God's true church on earth. I KNOW that Jesyus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. I KNOW that the book of mormon is the true word of God and I KNOW Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. <br /><br />"Belief at least holds to the idea that one could be mistaken, and it seems the only honest way to approach such things."<br /><br />Agreed. Which is why we continually excercise our faith in Christ to come closer to him and to God Most High. <br /><br /><i> 6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.</i> (Ether 12)<br /><br /><i> 19 And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.</i> (Ether 3)<br /><br />"For those that believe in god and have close friends and family that are gay, they are likely to take a much more liberal view on god's stance with homosexuality."<br /><br />There was a member of our single's branch who was excommunicated because of a homosexual act he engaged in and then pretty much challeneged the Church to excommunicate him. I don't know of a single person who altered their view of of homosexuality and he remained a close friend to many. if I did facebook 9I hate it and so I do not use it) he'd be one of my friends on it. In fact I'd love for him to be one were I a facebook user. I sdont doubt you statiscically (I don't know either way) but that is my experience.<br /><br />"Sure you may get some spiritual feelings in your Mormon religion, but it doesn't hold a candle to all the truth they have. (This is how they would see it anyways.) "<br /><br />Then "let them worship how, where, and what they may." And God may bless them for it.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.com