DiscussMormonism.com

Rather than in Church?

All the new announcements on blacks, magic peepstones and such are made in the newspaper. Why aren't they being made IN church meetings?

Seems it would be printed out and given to the members in Priesthood and Relief Society meetings. Discussed in Sunday School classes and have talks on it in Sacrament meetings.

Could it be the numnuts in charge don't think most of the members are worth the effort of 'further light and obfuscation' like those who read the newspapers and internet?

At the very least a letter read over the pulpit directing members to read the statements would be sensible.

Are you kidding me????????

Isn't the reason beyond obvious????

If the "Race and the Priesthood Statement" were read in Sacrament Meeting, or in General Conference, it would UPSET most of the over 65 Mormons who KNOW AS FACT that the Church taught just the opposite as they were growing up and as they were young adults...that Negroes were cursed, were less valiant, and these things were NOT theories but in fact PART of the Gospel of Jesus Chris: as part of the Gospel as any other part.

What the Brethren are doing is PLACATING the Black Members, and the white Mormon liberals. At least, the Brethren are no longer LYING about the subject, as they did from 1996 to 2013. Got to give 'em that. But its not because they've suddenly become "honest". It's because, thanks to the Internet, the old lies aren't working anymore. If the new "truth" doesn't work, they'll go back to the old lies.

ZelphtheGreat wrote:Rather than in Church?

All the new announcements on blacks, magic peepstones and such are made in the newspaper. Why aren't they being made IN church meetings?

Seems it would be printed out and given to the members in Priesthood and Relief Society meetings. Discussed in Sunday School classes and have talks on it in Sacrament meetings.

Could it be the numnuts in charge don't think most of the members are worth the effort of 'further light and obfuscation' like those who read the newspapers and internet?

At the very least a letter read over the pulpit directing members to read the statements would be sensible.

I was pondering the same thing, I believe it is PC within the body, the "all is well factor," that they, The Church, are no longer with hold information...it goes along with the Joseph Smith papers.

Now when a doubter says that they weren't taught this, it can be refuted. If only they would put cf instead of just saying "some critics," then it would be truly open. Most chapel Mormons just want reassurance, not real answers.

Rather than in Church?

Because nothing changed relative to the doctrine of the Church. "Forget everything I said" happened waaaaay back in 1978.

I didn't think the church itself actually announced anything in the papers, did they? They just kind of slipped the articles in their gospel topics website, but this was noticed by people. My understanding was that it was the newspapers (e.g. SLTrib) who picked up on the buzz around them and reported on it, unilaterally. Am I wrong on this?

The scripting of Church manuals is done years ahead of time. However, the second Sunday in June of 2023 is available.

i believe the purpose of these letters is to give bishops a reference to send questioning members to. It's that simple.

When I was in a leadership position, I had nothing to send doubters to. I had my subjective testimony and my pre-programmed slate of go to statements. After all, God works in mysterious ways. I could refer them to the Bishop or the Stake President, but there was nothing formal to cite.

Now a bishop has a reference to send questioning members to. The references are woefully inadequate and embarrassing to say the least. They also open new avenues of questioning such as BY being potentially questioned in terms of his inspiration, perspiration, or desperation.

When is a Profit speaking as a man and when is he speaking as a Profit? Will today's divine principles be tomorrow's suggested guidelines?

As far back as 1985 I suggested to the FP that they have an office in the COB, staffed by people with answers, and the bishops and missionaries could call when they have anti-Mormon questions, sort of like telephone counsellors. This was before the Internet. This was back when only 1 or 2000 left the Church every year because of anti-mormon stuff. Of course, even at that time, most missionaries in the U.S. lost investigators due to anti-mormon literature. Well, natually, I was told I was "trying to steady the Ark" and I was "trying to make money off of the Church" etc., etc. I think perhaps NOW the good Brethren wished they would have taken my advice. These LDS.ORG statements are really a day late and a dollar short.


When is a Prophet acting as a Prophet? A. Joseph Smith "acted" pretty damn well.

No Mas Mentiras wrote:i believe the purpose of these letters is to give bishops a reference to send questioning members to. It's that simple.

When I was in a leadership position, I had nothing to send doubters to. I had my subjective testimony and my pre-programmed slate of go to statements. After all, God works in mysterious ways. I could refer them to the Bishop or the Stake President, but there was nothing formal to cite.

Now a bishop has a reference to send questioning members to. The references are woefully inadequate and embarrassing to say the least. They also open new avenues of questioning such as BY being potentially questioned in terms of his inspiration, perspiration, or desperation.

When is a Profit speaking as a man and when is he speaking as a Profit? Will today's divine principles be tomorrow's suggested guidelines?

DannyBoy wrote: I think perhaps NOW the good Brethren wished they would have taken my advice. These LDS.ORG statements are really a day late and a dollar short.

I am not so sure. After all, they don't have any satisfying answers, so would such a "hotline" have really helped?

Saw Skooh wrote:I didn't think the church itself actually announced anything in the papers, did they? They just kind of slipped the articles in their gospel topics website, but this was noticed by people. My understanding was that it was the newspapers (e.g. SLTrib) who picked up on the buzz around them and reported on it, unilaterally. Am I wrong on this?

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/6 ... urces.html

Regards,
MG