Page 1 of 4
Buckeye lays the smack down on bcspace
Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:41 pm
by _Buffalo
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/571 ... ge__st__80bcspace wrote:Yet the Church hasn't repented of the ban and still maintains that it was Divinely appointed.
buckeye wrote:Wrong. Read the press release again. Mark it in your calendar. Today - Leap Day 2012 - the church officially dropped any reference to "divinely appointed". Wasn't it you who just today said the newsroom is LDS doctrine?
"It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.
We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."
Re: Buckeye lays the smack down on bcspace
Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:41 pm
by _Buffalo
Then to add insult to injury:
nackhadlow wrote:BCSPACE, I think you're big on pointing out that latest Trump's old, even if old is still on the website.
Latest says "we don't know why" the policy was there. Nowhere does it affirm or defend that it was divine. It allows for it, but does not argue for it.
Re: Buckeye lays the smack down on bcspace
Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:47 pm
by _Buffalo
And his defense? The idea that refreshing a web page makes it more current
LOL
Re: Buckeye lays the smack down on bcspace
Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:53 pm
by _Drifting
Anyone else waiting for bcspace to declare the Church's official statement as unofficial?
Re: Buckeye lays the smack down on bcspace
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:27 am
by _RayAgostini
Maybe someone at Church headquarters reads MDDB and MDB?
The Church and Race: "All Are Alike Unto God" (Issued by email minutes ago.)
Re: Buckeye lays the smack down on bcspace
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:38 am
by _bcspace
Unfortunately, the cowards moderating MAD shut the thread down before I could respond.
I would say a web site like the Church's is almost constantly up to date, to within days or minutes. And anything published thereon, especially in that context, is the latest and greatest.
...
Seriously? You're arguing that everytime the church website refreshes it counts as a new pronouncement of doctrine?
No. But even you will admit that a web site can be changed far quicker than a publication.
If that's true, then you must admit that the newsroom statement issued today is just as current because it also is constantly refreshed.
I have no problem with the newsroom statement. It doesn't change anything I've said.
Once again, this is today's statement: "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church"
Does not change the Church's doctrine that continues to exist:
http://www.LDS.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng Notice that why is not answered here either.
Re: Buckeye lays the smack down on bcspace
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:51 am
by _bcspace
Anyone else waiting for bcspace to declare the Church's official statement as unofficial?
Why would I want to do that? It's official. It doesn't present any new doctrine or conflict with old doctrine so nothing has changed.
Re: Buckeye lays the smack down on bcspace
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:03 am
by _Tobin
bcspace,
Why do we, as Mormons, have to play this game of "I don't know why the doctrine was given to bar blacks from having the priesthood"? It is a silly game to play.
IF we believe that the Mormon church has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (I feel like I'm giving testimony in court), then shouldn't we also acknowledge the truth about when we get it wrong? I think there is this misconception in the Church that possessing the truth (or I'd like to more clearly state that the Church should be about "seeking the truth") makes the Church and its mortal leaders infallible. That belief just sets one up for failure and ridicule. Human beings and as a result the organizations that they are a part of are highly fallible. With that proper understanding, I don't see why we, as in Mormons and the Church, just don't come clean - state it was a man-made doctrine introduced by racists (of which I absolutely believe BY was one) - and apologize and move on. Being dedicated to discovering the truth is about being able to recognize one's mistakes, acknowledge it, learn from it, and move on from there.
Re: Buckeye lays the smack down on bcspace
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:16 am
by _bcspace
Why do we, as Mormons, have to play this game of "I don't know why the doctrine was given to bar blacks from having the priesthood"? It is a silly game to play.
Because anti Mormonism, by definition, has to be very nuanced in order to maintain the deception. Such nuances include much that isn't doctrine.
IF we believe that the Mormon church has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (I feel like I'm giving testimony in court), then shouldn't we also acknowledge the truth about when we get it wrong?
Sure. Feel free to point out where I am wrong.
I think there is this misconception in the Church that possessing the truth (or I'd like to more clearly state that the Church should be about "seeking the truth") makes the Church and its mortal leaders infallible.
I think we ought to treat them like we treat the ancient prophets; fallible men who nevertheless made it work or got the job done.
That belief just sets one up for failure and ridicule. Human beings and as a result the organizations that they are a part of are highly fallible. With that proper understanding, I don't see why we, as in Mormons and the Church, just don't come clean - state it was a man-made doctrine introduced by racists (of which I absolutely believe BY was one) - and apologize and move on. Being dedicated to discovering the truth is about being able to recognize one's mistakes, acknowledge it, learn from it, and move on from there.
The nice thing about all this is that the LDS Church has a Systematic Theology with a clear and absolute identifier for doctrine. Because of it, we can easily separate out the fallible man from the prophetic statements. Notice that I did not have to deny the Newsroom article (beyond me why anyone would think I'd have to), I simply relied on the doctrine. I take the Church at it's word and apply all of them. I believe it (my testimony).
Re: Buckeye lays the smack down on bcspace
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:24 am
by _Sethbag
What is "doctrine" or not by nitpicking over contrived definitions is irrelavent. What matters is that past generations of Prophets, Seers, and Revelators pronounced, taught, pontificated, opined, held forth, and even bloviated on the reasons for the ban, pronounced that it was the result of divine command, and so forth, and they have all officially been thrown under the bus, the bus impounded and sent by flatbed to Mt. Doom, and then Mt. Doom dropped under the continental plates.