The Church and Race: All Are Alike Unto God

[_Equality]

Before I read the rest I wanted to stop on this point you make:

The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching. (This scripture pre-dates the priesthood ban. If it is Church doctrine now, was it not church doctrine at the time the ban was instituted? And wasn't this scripture part of the canon the entire time the ban was in place? If this scripture provides a basis for not having a priesthood ban, why was a new revelation needed in 1978 to change the policy? Why couldn't the Prophet have just said something like "I was reading the Book of Mormon and saw this scripture verse that I guess no previous Prophet ever noticed before. Looks like we have to lift the ban because the Book of Mormon says so."?)

The Book of Mormon states that, yet women are banned from the priesthood as well. So, the LDS church still doesn't believe it. That scripture is meaningless.

Excellent point. I think Bishops ought to start ordaining women and say their authority is this scripture verse cited by President Newsroom. If this scripture is the basis for ordaining all men regardless of race, it is the basis for female ordination as well. Either that, or President Newsroom is being disingenuous by citing the verse as being the church's official doctrine.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Does President Newsroom speak with greater authority than the united voice of the First Presidency?

The FP approves the message. It is established doctrine because it is published by the Church according to it's own definition of doctrine.

BC raises an extremely good point.

The Church has the ability to simply state -- this is our position. Apostates and malcontents have no standing, no basis, to gainsay that.

For instance, if I worked for an airframe manufacturers, such as Boeing, Boeing could say: "We have a policy that we will not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference." Disgruntled shareholders could argue that Boeing doesn't put practice to policy, that Boeing violates its policy, that Boeing is a hypocrite, but they can't escape the fact that announced policy is policy.

Or, the Catholic church could, as it has, issue a papal bull that announces that Catholic politicians should not support capital punishment. Now, apostates could argue that Catholic politicians do, indeed, support capital punishment but they cannot gainsay that policy.

So, if a policy, statement or other thing is said on a church website, that is what it is. Apostates have no standing to say that that that is not the church's policy. It is ex cathedra.

Nor is it germane to say that policy changes. The Old Testament says that forevermore Moabites will not be admitted to the congregation of the Lord until the 10th generation, yet David's great-grandmother was a Moabite.

[_Drifting]

The FP approves the message. It is established doctrine because it is published by the Church according to it's own definition of doctrine.

BC raises an extremely good point.

The Church has the ability to simply state -- this is our position. Apostates and malcontents have no standing, no basis, to gainsay that.

For instance, if I worked for an airframe manufacturers, such as Boeing, Boeing could say: "We have a policy that we will not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference." Disgruntled shareholders could argue that Boeing doesn't put practice to policy, that Boeing violates its policy, that Boeing is a hypocrite, but they can't escape the fact that announced policy is policy.

Or, the Catholic church could, as it has, issue a papal bull that announces that Catholic politicians should not support capital punishment. Now, apostates could argue that Catholic politicians do, indeed, support capital punishment but they cannot gainsay that policy.

So, if a policy, statement or other thing is said on a church website, that is what it is. Apostates have no standing to say that that that is not the church's policy. It is ex cathedra.

Nor is it germane to say that policy changes. The Old Testament says that forevermore Moabites will not be admitted to the congregation of the Lord until the 10th generation, yet David's great-grandmother was a Moabite.

True. But the Church's position is usually 'we don't know...' which isn't really a position at all....

[_Equality]

The Old Testament says that forevermore Moabites will not be admitted to the congregation of the Lord until the 10th generation, yet David's great-grandmother was a Moabite.

Which is why an appeal to the Bible as authority is a fool's errand. That the Bible is inconsistent is no defense for the inconsistency of the Mormon church. Two wrongs don't make a right, remember?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Which is why an appeal to the Bible as authority is a fool's errand. That the Bible is inconsistent is no defense for the inconsistency of the Mormon church. Two wrongs don't make a right, remember?

Ahh, the shifting sands of apostasy. Can't debate the resurrection with an apostate by quoting from the scriptures, can I? Can't point to the scriptures as proof of God's relationship with man, can I? Then why the hell do you want to debate religion? (My point which I made to the Dude earlier this week.)

[_Buffalo]

Which is why an appeal to the Bible as authority is a fool's errand. That the Bible is inconsistent is no defense for the inconsistency of the Mormon church. Two wrongs don't make a right, remember?

Ahh, the shifting sands of apostasy. Can't debate the resurrection with an apostate by quoting from the scriptures, can I? Can't point to the scriptures as proof of God's relationship with man, can I? Then why the hell do you want to debate religion? (My point which I made to the Dude earlier this week.)

Tu quoque is fallacious no matter who you're debating with.

[_bcspace]

The Church published it, therefore, there is a beginning and an end.

How does saying X is in Y establish that everything in Y is X?

Because logic dictates that an organization can speak for itself.

[_Buffalo]

How does saying X is in Y establish that everything in Y is X?

Because logic dictates that an organization can speak for itself.

Nice dodge.

[_Themis]

Because logic dictates that an organization can speak for itself.

Yet another dodge. Try answering the question. I know an organization can speak for itself, but this does not show where the church has ever said everything published is doctrine. I suspect you don't understand the difference between things like doctrine, policy, etc.

[_RayAgostini]

Who were they? Why not say the Church's Prophet and his fellow Apostles sought divine guidance? Why not say "the Lord's Prophet at the time, President Spencer W. Kimball, prayed in unison with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for, and received, a revelation from God ending the ban"?0[/b] sought divine guidance (Note that President Newsroom says the church leaders sought divine guidance but does not state that they received such guidance. And no use of the word "revelation." Why is that? Interesting word choice.)regarding the issue...

I think criticism is important, but it's also important to get all the facts if possible. Because the editorial doesn't give out all the specific details doesn't mean there's something "fishy" going on. I'm sure you can find much more detail about the circumstances of the revelation online, but from my own experience, I recall listening to Elder Rex D. Pinegar speak at an Australian stake centre in the late '70s. He spoke for over an hour, and gave us specific insights into the circumstances of what happened. He said some of the older GAs voiced strong opinions against lifting the ban (perhaps McConkie was one?), and they debated the issue freely. He said he was amazed at how open and emotionally charged the debate was among some of them, almost like politicians debating policies. In the end, he said, there was no question of which direction the Church was to take, and that this came to them in the form of revelation, and each was satisfied that God had inspired President Kimball to move in this direction.

I imagine that, apart from the Manifesto, this was the second major change the Church experienced in its history. Many never "got over" the Manifesto, and all sorts of splinter groups formed, which led to "the fundamentalist polygamists" who still exist today. It's probably not unfair, though, to criticise what one sees as inconsistencies. Indeed, the fundamentalists firmly believe that the "Church went astray" in 1890.

Mormons believe in modern revelation. I imagine Christians in the 1st century also believed in "modern revelation", and those who didn't rejected Christ on the ground that he usurped the Law of Moses and "led the people astray". I'm willing to accept what "President Newsroom" wrote, with the approval of Church leaders, because it is where Mormons stand today. I accept them at their word that this is where they stand today, and I approve of it because it's much better than where they stood before the 1978 revelation!