sock puppet wrote:So over time, the LDS Church has developed and learned stupidity? What was so certain, revelations and commandments from god are now not understood?
Is this a blood sugar stupor from too many cookies and Pepsi?
We have explained this simple concept to you people over and over again.....
The Church used to be more "liberal" in what it said, by allowing more "opinion" instead of solid revealed doctrine and revelation. It has since learned, that like with the Priesthood ban, opinions are like BH's, everyone has one, and such doesn't represent the actual doctrines of God.
In other words, somethings not doctrine until it's:
1. In the scripture 2. Been revealed, and is sustained by scripture 3. Been revealed, sustained by scripture, AND sustained by the Church and full leadership.
In other words, the Church has a "checks and balances" process for what is and isn't doctrine of the Church. In the past, they were a little too liberal in various views. Today, they strive more diligently that only doctrine is taught, and striving for less mistakes.
There is no great conspiracy here, no lying, nor anything else. The Church is simply trying to be more clear with what it actually KNOWS....
You people should be happy the Church isn't making as many mistakes.... but to the wicked there is no satisfaction to your bigotry and hate. The Church has actually gotten SMARTER..... contrary to your claim of it becoming more "stupid".
Who is 'we'?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
ldsfaqs wrote: We have explained this simple concept to you people over and over again.....
And yet the 99.8% of the world that is not LDS keeps asking about it. Perhaps the church should try a new approach. How well does the "I don't know excuse" work for kids? "Why did you hit your sister?" "I don't know." How well would it work during a church discipline? How well would it work in court? "Sir, can you kindly explain to the jury why you murdered those people?" "Sure. The truth is I don't know why I did it. I keep trying to explain this simple concept over and over again to you people and you just don't get it."
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
ldsfaqs wrote: We have explained this simple concept to you people over and over again.....
And yet the 99.8% of the world that is not LDS keeps asking about it. Perhaps the church should try a new approach. How well does the "I don't know excuse" work for kids? "Why did you hit your sister?" "I don't know." How well would it work during a church discipline? How well would it work in court? "Sir, can you kindly explain to the jury why you murdered those people?" "Sure. The truth is I don't know why I did it. I keep trying to explain this simple concept over and over again to you people and you just don't get it."
But in the court of TBM public opinion, it somehow is the pablum that satiates them.
We don't fully understand the reasons for this doctrine/policy" Really? Even my TBM wife gaged on that one...she sat up right and said...he's not telling the truth...
He's telling the straight up truth no matter how you slice it.
While I appreciate your perspective...please help me understand exactly HOW Snow is being truthful. Keep in mind that Snow is the official Church Historian...he has access to more information regarding the "WHY's" behind this policy than any of the posters here do, yet within minutes of making this post...there was substancial information provided by these mere posters on this board that clearly explained the WHY's behind this doctrine/policy. And please help me understand how He wouldn't understand the reasons...IF so many simple posters here do know the reasons. You're not suggesting that Snow is that inept are you?
Back before the church was embarrassed by this doctrine/policy (his words) it was very common for the "REASONS" to be taught and discussed in church meetings. Just as Church GA's were frustrated with this doctrine/policy that they inherited from BY....the average members were too...AND Pre-1978 there was an explanation to justify the doctrine/policy.
Snow KNOWS the reasons behind this doctrine (a doctrine that has NEVER been disavowed)...he was merely being coy at best, disingenuous or outright dishonest when he said that “We don't fully understand the reasons for this doctrine/policy"…Sorry but I just expect more honestly from someone who claims to speak for God…being embarrassed by past church doctrine/policy…is not an excuse to lie on national TV.
"...The official doctrine of the LDS Church is a Global Flood" - BCSpace
"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Phillip K. Dick
“The meaning of life is that it ends" - Franz Kafka
Blixa wrote:I also don't understand what the imagined result of "we don't know" is supposed to be. It leaves all kind of terrible racial beliefs circulating among older members (and possibly the not so old as well)
This is an excellent point. I have always focused on the effect that "we don't know" has on the foundational authority of the apostles and prophets (if they don't know this, what the hell good are they as oracles who allegedly get revelation). But this aspect of "we don't know" is even more insidious than that. If they don't know the reason, then what they are saying is maybe Brigham Young, et al. had it right. Maybe it is the Curse of Cain. Maybe the blacks really were less valiant in the pre-existence and that's why they were denied the priesthood. After all, if they don't fully understand the reasons, then those reasons that were offered for over 100 years to explain it might be correct. We just don't know. It is telling that the church has never said they were wrong about any aspect of the priesthood ban other than McConkie's acknowledgment that they were wrong about the timing of when the ban would be lifted (he had maintained it would not be lifted before the Millennium). McConkie's statement to forget what the Brethren had said in the past referred only to those things that were contrary to the 1978 revelation, wich does not address the Curse of Cain or valiance int he pre-existence as explanations for why the ban was instituted and maintained for over a century. So, who knows, maybe ole Brigham was right after all. We just don't fully understand these things, do we?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Snow was exactly right. As Lester Bush's research has shown, nobody knows exactly why and when this policy/doctrine was put in place (Bush has since left the faith, partly because of continued repercussions for his research).
Far from anybody every knowing the reasons, it seems that all of the myriad given explanations for the ban were post hoc explanations.
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
We don't fully understand the reasons for this doctrine/policy" Really? Even my TBM wife gaged on that one...she sat up right and said...he's not telling the truth...
bcspace wrote:He's telling the straight up truth no matter how you slice it.
No it is not the truth. Better turn in your TR if you think so. You know that honesty thing. Guess it only counts for members not for the Chruch leaders. Brigham Young knew it. Race of Cain and cursed and all that. The FP of 1949 knew and said it in a statement. Doctrine of the Church, race of Cain and alluded to less valient in the pre-existence.
the narrator wrote:Snow was exactly right. As Lester Bush's research has shown, nobody knows exactly why and when this policy/doctrine was put in place (Bush has since left the faith, partly because of continued repercussions for his research).
Thanks for this information. I have wondered for a while now where Lester Bush had gone.
the narrator wrote:Far from anybody every knowing the reasons, it seems that all of the myriad given explanations for the ban were post hoc explanations.
This is hairsplitting in my opinion. The idea seems to be that because we don't have some contemporaneous document giving reasons for the ban, the church can hide behind the "we don't know" stance. So what if all of the reasons given were post hoc explanations? These were still the reasons given by prophets, seer, and revelators for decades. Why are these always conveniently ignored because of lack of contemporaneous documentation? Why not give the post hoc explanations and then explain why they no longer hold?
Besides, lack of contemporaneous documentation has never stopped the church from asserting that the Melchizedek priesthood was restored and why it was needed. The post hoc explanations given for this always seem to be good enough for the church and its members.
