maklelan wrote:Since David O. McKay, however, the church has explicitly and consistently rejected those justifications for the ban and have mostly asserted that the ban was God's will, for whatever reason.
maklelan wrote: Numerous general authorities have repeated stated in church and non-church publications and settings that we shouldn't speculate on why. I've already pointed to several of them, but they've been swept under the rug in the zeal to make this about getting the church on its knees.
Kevin Graham wrote:Could you please support this with evidence? Because I have yet to see any. In fact, you seem to have shifted your ground a bit in this thread as Rollo pressed you. You went from saying Church remarks since 1947 represent an "explicit rejection" of the "less valiant in the premortal existence" teaching, to now saying: "It got rid of support for the speculation." Well you can't just assume the Church no longer supported that teaching just because it stopped teaching it. [...]
i just want to second Kevin's request for maklelan to cite some examples of church leaders "explicitly" rejecting the previous doctrinal justifications.
i'm genuinely interested because i don't recall hearing anything counter to the pre-1978 rationalizations when i was growing up in the church in the 1980s and 1990s, and also because i know many of my "chapel Mormon" relatives were quite surprised by the Feb 2012 Bott press release. and maklelan, my apologies if i missed where you've given examples previously.
nc47 wrote:The Church cannot issue a formal apology right now. It needs the people still attached to those racist statements and posting them on the internet to die first. Apologizing now would factionalize the Church.
Isn't this the type of thinking that lead to this morass in the first place? We need to stand for something and we need that something to be honorable and encompass the spirit of love. Must we be so proud and stiff-necked that we cannot rise to the occasion?
by the way, Dr. Nelson was very eloquent acting in the role of God's advocate.
There's a time for that.
"It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey." - Soren Kierkegaard
The church releases an anonymous article on their own web site. Is the first presidency sustaining this article? If so where can I read their explicit support. Why is it not announced by the prophet? Why is it not read in sacrament meetings? It appears to me that it is just another apologetic piece, the opinions of men, lacking the support of the prophet.
Many corporations will have a disclaimer on their web site stating that they are not responsible for any errors contained on their site. Does the church have this type of disclaimer. Is this piece just an error?
Why should I give any credence in an anonymous article which is contradictory to official published announcements issued to the body of the church in the past by first presidency?
Frodo wrote:The church releases an anonymous article on their own web site. Is the first presidency sustaining this article? If so where can I read their explicit support. Why is it not announced by the prophet? Why is it not read in sacrament meetings? It appears to me that it is just another apologetic piece, the opinions of men, lacking the support of the prophet.
Many corporations will have a disclaimer on their web site stating that they are not responsible for any errors contained on their site. Does the church have this type of disclaimer. Is this piece just an error?
Why should I give any credence in an anonymous article which is contradictory to official published announcements issued to the body of the church in the past by first presidency?
In this video on LDS.org, church historian Steven Snow states that these articles are approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12.
Tim the Enchanter wrote: In this video on LDS.org, church historian Steven Snow states that these articles are approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12.
I don't accept that as authoratative. The man is a nobody and has no right to represent the First Presidency verbally. He has misrepresented the church. Show us a signed document by the First Presidency with the artical affixed or I will assume that this has slipped past the First Presidency without approval. I don't give a rat's ass if it is the official church website. That does not matter. There are a lot of hands that move about in the website and unless it's signed by the First Presidency it is NOT from the First Presidency. It's just another silly apologetic church statement that may later be deleted or changed at will. That is how Mormonism works. It's a crafty religion that is sneaky. It is not an honest church that reports things fully and honestly. Look out for slimely Mormons who lie!
Frodo wrote:The church releases an anonymous article on their own web site. Is the first presidency sustaining this article? If so where can I read their explicit support. Why is it not announced by the prophet? Why is it not read in sacrament meetings? It appears to me that it is just another apologetic piece, the opinions of men, lacking the support of the prophet.
Many corporations will have a disclaimer on their web site stating that they are not responsible for any errors contained on their site. Does the church have this type of disclaimer. Is this piece just an error?
Why should I give any credence in an anonymous article which is contradictory to official published announcements issued to the body of the church in the past by first presidency?
In this video on LDS.org, church historian Steven Snow states that these articles are approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12.
[Frodo]Ah yes, but where does the FirstPresidency explicitly approve Steven Snows statements?[/Frodo]
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Thank you for that link. This is Snow's comment "...and understand that those answers have been approved by the presiding brethren of the church". Although this is better, I am still left to wonder why there is not and explicit statement by the prophet on this web page stating his approval? Just who are the "presiding brethren". Maybe I am being too critical. Maybe the presiding brethren includes the prophet. Or maybe it is someone lower. If it is the prophet why just not say it. In circumstances like these the church uses it's words very carefully.
I guess I just need to be comforted that I should just understand by his words (snow) that the prophet stands behind these remarks.
It seems that presented in this manner, it will be easier to disavow this article in the future.
I guess in thinking about it if I were the prophet I might be a little embarrassed to say that I just did not know why the ban was in effect.
Frodo wrote:Thank you for that link. This is Snow's comment "...and understand that those answers have been approved by the presiding brethren of the church". Although this is better, I am still left to wonder why there is not and explicit statement by the prophet on this web page stating his approval? Just who are the "presiding brethren". Maybe I am being too critical. Maybe the presiding brethren includes the prophet. Or maybe it is someone lower. If it is the prophet why just not say it. In circumstances like these the church uses it's words very carefully.
I guess I just need to be comforted that I should just understand by his words (snow) that the prophet stands behind these remarks.
It seems that presented in this manner, it will be easier to disavow this article in the future.
I guess in thinking about it if I were the prophet I might be a little embarrassed to say that I just did not know why the ban was in effect.
Did I call it or did I call it?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
It appears that the LDS church is in a lose-lose situation with regards to the priesthoodban dilemma. The passive agressive rethoric of Maklelan shows the mindgames frying his emotions and mental capacity when he has to circumvent logic and retort to kindergarden replies.
The latest published statement has clarified the LDS PR departments current advice on how to get out of the dilemma. "We don't know" --> Blame the invisible supreme being whos ways we cannot fathom. The dilemma being having to chose between throwing the cornerstone of the main church (Brigham Young) under the bus, or remaining arrogant and unrepentant of the terrible racist past.
About Joseph Smith.. How do you think his persona was influenced by being the storyteller since childhood? Mastering the art of going pale, changing his voice, and mesmerizing his audience.. How do you think he was influenced by keeping secrets and lying for his wife and the church members for decades?
Are things beginning to unravel at the CAB? Perhaps the church should have left well enough alone...and stuck with their claim that they didn't know the reasons for the priesthood ban rather than throwing every pre-1978 church authority under the bus by eschewing their pronouncements as mere theories. You begin pulling at one thread and before you know it the whole clothe falls apart
"...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
