Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

[_eatthedocument]

I'd like someone to show me how "We don't know the reason" is a position of strength for the Church. How is that a credible position? Is this spineless appeal to ignorance supposed to put anyone at ease beyond the most orthodox and apologetic Mormons? Even casual observers have more powerful explanations for the ban than "we simply don't know."
Noting the contradictions of "we don't know" with past church doctrine is fantastic, but we can't lose sight of the fact that "We don't know" is an utterly risible response for an organization claiming special insight into morality and God's will.

[_Tobin]

I'd like someone to show me how "We don't know the reason" is a position of strength for the Church. How is that a credible position? Is this spineless appeal to ignorance supposed to put anyone at ease beyond the most orthodox and apologetic Mormons? Even casual observers have more powerful explanations for the ban than "we simply don't know."
Noting the contradictions of "we don't know" with past church doctrine is fantastic, but we can't lose sight of the fact that "We don't know" is an utterly risible response for an organization claiming special insight into morality and God's will.

It seems perfectly plausible to me. I take them at their word that they really don't know. And since they don't know what God's will is, then members of the Church should learn from this and instead seek the will of the Lord directly instead.

[_eatthedocument]

I'd like someone to show me how "We don't know the reason" is a position of strength for the Church. How is that a credible position? Is this spineless appeal to ignorance supposed to put anyone at ease beyond the most orthodox and apologetic Mormons? Even casual observers have more powerful explanations for the ban than "we simply don't know."
Noting the contradictions of "we don't know" with past church doctrine is fantastic, but we can't lose sight of the fact that "We don't know" is an utterly risible response for an organization claiming special insight into morality and God's will.

It seems perfectly plausible to me. I take them at their word that they really don't know. And since they don't know what God's will is, then members of the Church should learn from this and instead seek the will of the Lord directly instead.

Your position on this matter interests me not at all. But I do find it wonderful that you're willing to "take them at their word" today and not at their word in the 1940s. What's the point in prophecy and special claims to moral authority and divine will when it's left up to people like you put together the broken pieces?

[_Bazooka]

Your position on this matter interests me not at all. But I do find it wonderful that you're willing to "take them at their word" today and not at their word in the 1940s. What's the point in prophecy and special claims to moral authority and divine will when it's left up to people like you put together the broken pieces?

Which is an interesting dilemma.

We are being told that taking Brigham Young at his word was wrong.
We are being told that taking the First Presidency from 1940 at their word, was wrong.
We are being told that taking the revised introduction to OD2 at its word is now wrong.
We are being told that we can take "Race and the Priesthood" at its word.

Anyone remember the story "The Boy Who Cried Wolf...."

[_Yahoo Bot]

Your position on this matter interests me not at all. But I do find it wonderful that you're willing to "take them at their word" today and not at their word in the 1940s. What's the point in prophecy and special claims to moral authority and divine will when it's left up to people like you put together the broken pieces?

Which is an interesting dilemma.

We are being told that taking Brigham Young at his word was wrong.
We are being told that taking the First Presidency from 1940 at their word, was wrong.
We are being told that taking the revised introduction to OD2 at its word is now wrong.
We are being told that we can take "Race and the Priesthood" at its word.

Anyone remember the story "The Boy Who Cried Wolf...."

If you don't like the fact that Shriners wear silly hats, then don't join. If you're a Shriner, then leave. Whiners garner no respect. Stand up like a man (or woman), be counted, and get out. But don't work on spoiling the party for the rest of us, who enjoy wearing the silly hats.

[_Jaybear]

If you don't like the fact that Shriners wear silly hats, then don't join. If you're a Shriner, then leave. Whiners garner no respect. Stand up like a man (or woman), be counted, and get out. But don't work on spoiling the party for the rest of us, who enjoy wearing the silly hats.

Spoken like the conformist that you are.

When the Brethren said it was your duty to fund prop 8, I am guessing that broke out your checkbook and wrote a big fat check, not because your a bigot, who bought the BS fears that were being peddled, but because you are a conformist who doesn't have the balls to speak up to the rank bigotry of your church leaders.

Has it really never occurred to that the reason it took until 1978 to change the "policy" banning blacks from the priesthood, because the conformity and obedience you just spouted is considered virtues in your church.

[_badseed]

Since the doctrine or "theories" of Dyer were not expressly repudiated, some missionaries (particularly those in the zone in which I was serving that later discussed Dyer's remarks) left the meeting with the impression that Dyer's view with respect to the issue was doctrinal, but that the church, for obvious reasons, simply didn't want that doctrine being the subject of discussion. It was one of those "meaty" issues that you had to be "spiritually prepared" to understand (Dyer references this point in the talk, naturally).

Wow--I just went back and read that talk for the first time in probably 15 years. It's a doozy--

If I recall correctly correctly David O. McKay's take on the changes Bruce R. McConkie's was required to make to Mormon Doctrine following the 1st edition is that they were made for a similar reason. Specifically that things like his comments on the Catholic Church.....being the "great and abominable church"and the mother of harlots" were not necessarily incorrect but that making them available for Gentile consumption was creating problems for the LDS Church.

[_Bazooka]

If you don't like the fact that Shriners wear silly hats, then don't join. If you're a Shriner, then leave. Whiners garner no respect. Stand up like a man (or woman), be counted, and get out. But don't work on spoiling the party for the rest of us, who enjoy wearing the silly hats.

I call it missionary work, you believe in missionary work, right?

[_Yahoo Bot]

If you don't like the fact that Shriners wear silly hats, then don't join. If you're a Shriner, then leave. Whiners garner no respect. Stand up like a man (or woman), be counted, and get out. But don't work on spoiling the party for the rest of us, who enjoy wearing the silly hats.

I call it missionary work, you believe in missionary work, right?

Generally speaking, missionaries seek to bring people to God, not to guide them to the River Styx.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Spoken like the conformist that you are.

I am about the least of the conformers you will find in the Church, but I believe that essential Christianity means unity.

When the Brethren said it was your duty to fund prop 8, I am guessing that broke out your checkbook and wrote a big fat check, not because your a bigot, who bought the BS fears that were being peddled, but because you are a conformist who doesn't have the balls to speak up to the rank bigotry of your church leaders.

Now, there's a good example as far as I am concerned. I am a libertarian and had an indifferent attitude towards Prop 8. I was asked to write a big fat check and I did, even though it was against my political principles.