The Nehor wrote:[...] Lorenzo Snow later said that he didn't know if the ban came by revelation or if it was policy. [...]
Wait a minute. You're saying that a 'Prophet of the Lord,' who supposedly held all those 'keys' on earth, didn't know whether something was a revelation?
Don't you see a bit of a problem with that?
Nope. So many people outside the Church here seem to have higher expectations of the Prophet then those inside of it.
Don't you see a bit of a problem with that?
The Prophet of the Church has the keys of the Priesthood and is the Revelator for the Earth. He gets revelation as God directs. For the rest, he's like everyone else, working out his salvation. He does not automatically get every idle question he has answered nor does he consult with angelic beings eager to answer his every question on a weekly basis. When most members say that our leaders are human and fallible who have specific mantles of authority that is not just parrot talk. We believe it.
El Nehor -- this is what makes me uncomfortable with the ban (ignoring for now the convenience of selective prophet/seer fallibility):
The implication here is that the Church continued to officially discriminate against an entire race of people for over 100 years, simply because no prophet before Kimball thought to ask if it was the right thing to do, and God was okay with that, even to the point of sitting by while LDS leaders came up with bizarre justifications for the practice.
(On a personal note, the reversal in 1978, with all its implications, served as a major catalyst for my own eventual apostasy.)
Well, that's not true. President McKay considered removing the ban. So did Harold B. Lee. For some reason they did not. Maybe God left it in place. Maybe he was responsible for it. I don't know. God hasn't told me yet.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The old man spouting 'racist garbage' was only stating what a First Presidency statement from 1949 called a doctrine of the church.
I notice it doesn't say anything about them not being valiant in the pre-mortal existence nor does it say anything about not having the blessing because they are black. In addition, it does not say that they can never have such blessings or that when they get them they will be in a separate place or that the blessings will be of lesser quality.
Quoting Nehor:
In my life in the Church I've only once heard racist garbage once (in Utah) when a member told me and several others (we were 16-18) how blessed we are that we are American and white.
That 'doctrine' is exactly what the First Presidency statement is talking about in the second paragraph.
But whatever; the whole debate makes me wonder why I bothered teaching people in Argentina about the blessings of a modern prophet if a couple of thirty-somethings on the internet can define doctrine better than so-called prophets, seers, and revelators.
Jason Bourne wrote:I must say I find it odd that the Church would observe this in such a way and draw attention to the ending of what seems like a bad policy and practice.
To many apologetic Mormons, the date signals the end of God's demanded racism. God apparently saw the light and gave the word to the Brethren on this change of holy policy.
That 'doctrine' is exactly what the First Presidency statement is talking about in the second paragraph.
What 'doctrine'?
You are the authorized one (on this site) who can, may, able and should define what is doctrine and what isn't.
Please behave according to this alignment/assignment/designation/setting! (take Your pick, I am not english)
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
capt jack wrote:That 'doctrine' is exactly what the First Presidency statement is talking about in the second paragraph.
But whatever; the whole debate makes me wonder why I bothered teaching people in Argentina about the blessings of a modern prophet if a couple of thirty-somethings on the internet can define doctrine better than so-called prophets, seers, and revelators.
I'm a twenty-something. There are great blessings in having a modern Prophet. The man has keys. Keys to reveal things that I'm not allowed to. Keys to teach things I'm not supposed to. Keys to give blessings that I'm not allowed to.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Jason Bourne wrote:While once again we are subjected to Infymus's infantile spew I must say I find it odd that the Church would observe this in such a way and draw attention to the ending of what seems like a bad policy and practice.
It's childish, right Bourne, because I don't use "pretty language" to define your leaders. Because I haven't got any respect for them. Because I don't give a damn what Mormons think. Right?
Sorry, I am not going to use pretty language to describe men who prey on people for money, power and control.
Get used to it. Call it infantile all you want. The same could be said for your pot shots and your personal attacks.
No the same cannot be said at all. Though I am not surprised that you cannot see this.