What if Martin Luther King had been a Mormon
Michael Jordan
far as the Mormons were concerned,was an indelible mark and black could not
be admitted into the priesthood... until 1978.
So logically the curse was upon every black baby born prior to 1978? My
cursed mother gave birth to cursed children? And we all went to church and
got the gospel of Jesus Christ from our ministers who themselves were cursed
and couldn't have been priests in your Church anyway? I was baptised by a
black minister long before 1978. To the Mormons, was such a baptism
legitimate? Or were we just deluded Negroes playing with water?
Because based on what I read so far none of you speak with a single-voice
clarity on this subject. Vince says this, Russell says that, Fawn is
outraged... on and on...
I can't imagine what comfort any black person would get from joining a
church where seemingly everyone can't talk about it, won't talk it, and
contradicts each other. And now I hear Brigham Young's own books are hidden
or hard to find..
I would love to meet these blacks. I wonder if it occurred to them that even
if the Mormons never bestowed membership or preisthood upon blacks it
wouldn't have made a bit of difference to us. We would have still had a rich
spiritual life without the Mormons. *Jesus* saved us, not the Mormons.
But since you did invite us, why couldn't we have a leadership role in this
church we of which were members?
Well about that Civil Rights Movement you congratulate us for: I shudder to
think where Civil Rights would be if Martin Luther King Jr. became a Mormon
and therefore wouldn't have had a pulpit to speak from. He died before
1978.in case the point eludes you.
Vincent H.
this might be pretty offensive, but at least you will know what the
story is. It is so ridiculous, the claims made by Brigham and others,
but remember that these policies were implemented at a time when Blacks
were seen as second class citizens, and that these ridiculous policies
were carried on over the years by "leaders" who failed to make the
obvious connection of their origins. It is sad, it is wrong, and it is
only one out of about 1000 reasons I would suggest you do not join this
religion.
You can find more links like these at www.exmormon.org in the "Thinking
of joining" section.
Vincent H.
http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/africanamerican.htm
http://utlm.org/topicalindexa.htm#Blacks
http://www.exmormon.org/blacks1.htm
http://www.california.com/~rpcman/racism.htm
http://www.teleport.com/~packham/byoung.htm#NEGRO Brigham Young's
Doctrines on the Black race
Michael Jordan wrote:
Russell McGregor
"Michael Jordan" <mjo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Again, straighten it out for me if I've got it wrong. This Curse of
Cain, as
> far as the Mormons were concerned,was an indelible mark and black
could not
> be admitted into the priesthood... until 1978.
Which Mormons told you that?
The "mark of Cain" argument was not the cause of the Priesthood ban. It
was a post hoc argument developed to explain it.
> So logically the curse was upon every black baby born prior to 1978?
My
> cursed mother gave birth to cursed children? And we all went to church
and
> got the gospel of Jesus Christ from our ministers who themselves were
cursed
> and couldn't have been priests in your Church anyway? I was baptised
by a
> black minister long before 1978. To the Mormons, was such a baptism
> legitimate? Or were we just deluded Negroes playing with water?
If it's any consolation -- and if you aren't just going to ignore it --
we do not recognise *any* baptisms, other than our own. It doesn't
matter what colour the participants are. It's always been that way.
> Because based on what I read so far none of you speak with a
single-voice
> clarity on this subject. Vince says this, Russell says that, Fawn is
> outraged... on and on...
Fawn is a rather dizzy Evangelical, and Vince is an atheist. Lumping us
all together simply creates a straw man.
> I can't imagine what comfort any black person would get from joining a
> church where seemingly everyone can't talk about it, won't talk it,
and
> contradicts each other.
*Who* contradicts each other?
I'm only guessing here, but maybe there are some black people somewhere
who actually spend some time thinking about matters other than race.
> And now I hear Brigham Young's own books are hidden
> or hard to find..
You heard wrong.
> I would love to meet these blacks. I wonder if it occurred to them
that even
> if the Mormons never bestowed membership or preisthood upon blacks it
> wouldn't have made a bit of difference to us. We would have still had
a rich
> spiritual life without the Mormons. *Jesus* saved us, not the Mormons.
I would love you to meet some of these blacks as well. I wonder if it
occurs to you that they have thought through and dealt with all of the
same issues that you find so insuperable.
> But since you did invite us, why couldn't we have a leadership role in
this
> church we of which were members?
A point of order: we didn't actively proselyte among black people until
the Priesthood ban was lifted. Any black person who wanted to join the
Church was welcome to do so, but we didn't go out and invite you. We've
only been inviting you since the time that you *were* eligible to hold
leadership positions.
I read in the Deseret News where a Salt Lake City councilman is an
Elders Quorum President who, in times past, was a follower of Malcolm X.
He thought that MLK's approach was too soft, and wasn't going to work.
> Well about that Civil Rights Movement you congratulate us for: I
shudder to
> think where Civil Rights would be if Martin Luther King Jr. became a
Mormon
> and therefore wouldn't have had a pulpit to speak from. He died before
> 1978.in case the point eludes you.
It doesn't. But you must realise that no valid argument can be made
from unfulfilled conditions. What if George Wallace was black? What if
Brigham Young was black? Wouldn't that have been a turn-up for the
books?
Or what if Nathan Bedford Forrest was black? Would there still have
been a KKK? You could argue that, yes there would have been, because
the KKK simply embodied the bitterness and frustration of Southern
whites. But if you take this argument, you must also recognise the
corollary -- that King's message had such an appeal because black
Americans were ready to hear it. If not him, then maybe someone else.
Here's another "what if:" what if Mohandas K. Ghandi had never developed
his method of "passive resistance" which MLK subsequently adopted? How
would the Civil Rights movement have developed then?
As should be obvious by now, we can multiply "what ifs" forever, and
they get us precisely nowhere. The real question is -- what are you
trying to achieve?
If all you want to do is reinforce your own prejudices, and find
ammunition to throw at the Church of Jesus Christ, then by all means --
keep gnawing at this old bone, go to the websites Vincent posted for
you, and whatever you do, don't listen to anyone who doesn't agree with
you.
But if you really want to know how Latter-day Saints feel about these
and other matters, then you might try asking questions instead of merely
slinging accusations.
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
cdo...@my-deja.com
"Michael Jordan" <mjo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Again, straighten it out for me if I've got it wrong.
OK, I will try if you are honestly asking.
This Curse of
Cain, as
> far as the Mormons were concerned,was an indelible mark and black
could not
> be admitted into the priesthood... until 1978.
All blacks have an indelible mark, and so do whites. I am "indelibly"
marked as a white person. Etc. The point I am making is that your
"indelible mark" phrase is not a doctrine of the LDS church.
Now, I will not argue with you on that point.
And, yes, an individual who was of the black race could not receive the
priesthood until 1978.
>
> So logically the curse was upon every black baby born prior to 1978?
I think I answered your question.
My
> cursed mother gave birth to cursed children?
Are you asking a question?
And we all went to church
and
> got the gospel of Jesus Christ from our ministers who themselves were
cursed
> and couldn't have been priests in your Church anyway?
Let me ask you a question. You equate "curse" with "not receiving the
priesthood."
When God gave the priesthood *only* to the Levites was the rest of the
world "cursed"? Were the Jews, the Benjaminites, all the rest of Israel
equally cursed? Was the entire population of the earth cursed except
for the few thousand Levites who received the priesthood?
I would be happy to continue this conversation if you are willing to
answer my question. Your post does not appear to be a sincere question
but an attack. If you decide to speak with me with sincerety, I will be
happy to respond in kind.
snip
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
C&C
> Again, straighten it out for me if I've got it wrong. This Curse of Cain,
as
> far as the Mormons were concerned,was an indelible mark and black could
not
> be admitted into the priesthood... until 1978.
No, I think you have it exactly right.
> So logically the curse was upon every black baby born prior to 1978? My
> cursed mother gave birth to cursed children? And we all went to church and
> got the gospel of Jesus Christ from our ministers who themselves were
cursed
> and couldn't have been priests in your Church anyway? I was baptised by a
> black minister long before 1978. To the Mormons, was such a baptism
> legitimate? Or were we just deluded Negroes playing with water?
Actually, mormons don't recognize _any_ baptisms but their own. On this
point, at least, they are no different than any other baptizing religion.
> Because based on what I read so far none of you speak with a single-voice
> clarity on this subject. Vince says this, Russell says that, Fawn is
> outraged... on and on...
They're not all mormons. I'm agnostic, so take what I have to say about
mormon theology with a grain of salt. But I was raised mormon, so then
again ...
> I can't imagine what comfort any black person would get from joining a
> church where seemingly everyone can't talk about it, won't talk it, and
> contradicts each other. And now I hear Brigham Young's own books are
hidden
> or hard to find..
Not hard to find, but they don't seem to want to find them anymore. Here
are some of the quotes I found when I was studying the matter (warning, this
gets ugly):
"No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the
Priesthood."
The Prophet Joseph Smith, cited by President A. O. Smoot; Berrett, "The
Church and the Negroid People," Mormonism and the Negro, pg. 10
"Let this Church which is called the Kingdom of God on the Earth; we will
summons the First Presidency, the Twelve, the High Council, the Bishopric,
and all the Elders of Israel, suppose we summons them to appear here, and
here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of
Cain, that they shall come in with us, and be partakers with us of all the
blessings God has given to us. On that very day and hour we should do so,
the Priesthood is taken from this Church and Kingdom and God leaves us to
our fate."
Brigham Young; February 5, 1852
"Cain conversed with his God every day, and knew all about the plan of
creating this earth, for his father told him. But, for the want of
humility, and through jealousy, and an anxiety to possess the kingdom, and
to have the whole of it under his own control, and not allow any body else
the right to say one word, what did he do? He killed his brother. The Lord
put a mark on him; and there are some of his children in this room. When
all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the
Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed
from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection
from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and
his prosperity. He deprived his brother of the privilege of pursuing his
journey through life, and of extending his kingdom by multiplying upon the
earth; and because he did this, he is the last to share the joys of the
kingdom of God."
Brigham Young; December 3, 1854; JD 2:142-143
"The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his
brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam.
Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put
a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the
Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin... How long
is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse
will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it
until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and
enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the
last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that
favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first
ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and
they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue
of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse
will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in
like proportion."
Brigham Young; October 9, 1859; JD 7:290-291
"I have endeavored to give you a few items relating to the celestial
kingdom of God and to the other kingdoms which the Lord has prepared for his
children. The Lamanites or Indians are just as much the children of our
Father and God as we are. So also are the Africans. But we are also the
children of adoption through obedience to the Gospel of his Son. Why are so
many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It
comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy
Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all
the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy
Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they
will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings
which we are now entitled to."
Brigham Young; August 19, 1866; JD 11:272
"We had meeting[s] with several individuals among the rest, Black Jane [who]
wanted to know if I would not let her have her Endowments in the Temple.
This I could not do as it was against the Law of God, as Cain killed Abel.
All the seed of Cain would have to wait for redemption until all the seed
that Abel would have had, that may come through other men, can be redeemed."
Wilford Woodruff, Journal Entry October 16, 1894
"The Lord said I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him, and
that mark will be seen upon the face of every negro upon the face of the
earth; and it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon the seed
of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive
the priesthood until the time of that redemption."
Wilford Woodruff, from M. Cowley's Life of Wilford Woodruff, pg. 351
"When they were cast out, there were many who did not join the rebellious
forces, but who were not valiant. Because of their lack of obedience, they
were not deprived of receiving bodies, but came here under restrictions.
One of those restrictions is that they were denied the priesthood. They may
come into the Church, but they are not privileged to obtain the priesthood
in this mortal life."
J. F. Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:163
"Not only was Cain called to suffer, but because of his wickedness . . . a
curse was placed upon him, and that curse has been continued through his
lineage and must do so while time endures."
J. F. Smith, The Way to Perfection, pg. 101
"Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can
they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty . . . the lineage
of Cain and of Ham are absolutely denied the Priesthood as far as this
mortal life is concerned."
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pgs. 526-527, 479; 1966 edition
Whew. Is that enough? Notice I'm not trying to be anti-mormon here, but am
using church-approved books and speeches by their own prophets and apostles.
I think you can see why they'd rather dismiss Brigham Young and why they no
longer actively study these portions of his talks. Note also that the entry
in "Mormon Doctrine" has now changed to reflect the "new" Mormon doctrine.
The above quote was taken from 1966.
So it is a bit of an embarrassment to mormons, and your concern is founded.
They will try to tell you that these were only the opinions of fallible men,
but these fallible men were supposed to be led by god. Why did he not
reproach them for saying such things about his children? Was there never a
curse? If not, exactly what changed in 1978? Were the black spirits who
were born after 1978 somehow more worthy than their 1800 counterparts? If
not, why can they now enjoy something which was denied their ancestors? If
so, exactly how did they become more worthy?
The problem is that there is no coherent doctrine on the subject. No one
can give you a definitive answer for why the ban was instituted in the first
place. The church simply decided in 1978 to sweep this embarrassing mess
under the carpet without providing a rationale for either a) its existence
in the first place or b) why it was removed when it was.
Chuck
C&C
> ... so then again, it cuts no ice. It is universally understood and
> unanimously accepted by everybody not committed to religious polemics
> that *only* a believer is in any position to expound a belief, because
> only a believer can determine what is primary or secondary in his or her
> belief system.
Ah the old "it is clearly true ..." speech, by which, lacking any support
for the conclusion, the arguer attempts to embarrass the reader into
accepting it. I do not accept your conclusion, so it cannot be "universally
accepted." Maybe in the future you will be more careful with your use of
absolutes.
> > Here
> > are some of the quotes I found when I was studying the matter
> (warning, this
> > gets ugly):
>
> Which is, of course, why you are citing them.
Speak to the point or shut up.
> Let's see.
>
> The standard works of the Church are the only books which are
> authoritative and definitive of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus
> Christ of Latter-day Saints, and binding upon the members of the Church
> in matters of faith and morals.
>
> The standard works consist of:
>
> The Holy Bible
> The Book of Mormon
> The Doctrine and Covenants
> The Pearl of Great Price
Ah, I love this argument. "Only the standard works are binding ..." So how
do they become standard works? Where is the revelation from god that says,
"Please consider the Bible, BOM, D&C, and POGP the only authoritative
sources from which I grant my knowledge"?
In the absence of any such revelation, the answer is that the people choose
the "Standard Works." So what? People are fallible.
But for the sake of argument, let's allow that only the "Standard Works"
count. Here is a quote that might interest you:
"The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of
the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy
every number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of
`the light that shines from Zion's hill.'"
George Q. Cannon, Preface to JD 8
Oh, that one's gotta hurt. Do you mean to tell me that even the infallible,
unchanging "Standard Works" of the Church change with time?
Educate yourself on your own religion, you idiot. And then read the JD
quotes again, in light of the revised "Standard Works."
> And is the _Journal of Discourses_ one of the standard works mentioned
> above?
>
> I didn't think so.
I suppose you are in a better position than George Q. Cannon to determine
what is and is not to be considered the "Standard Works." They were
certainly considered "standard works" in their time.
For the sake of space, I'll snip the rest of your arrogant, unfounded
comments on the Journals of Discourses. Go back and read the quotes, moron.
How is it possible that I, an unbeliever, can educate you on your own
religion?
> And is Wilford Woodruff's journal one of the standard works mentioned
> above?
>
> I didn't think so.
You're the one who claims that Wilford was a prophet of god. Apparently he
was only "speaking the truth" when you agree with him.
> And is J. F. Smith's _Answers to Gospel Questions_ one of the standard
> works mentioned above?
>
> I didn't think so.
Dear god, it's called "Answers to Gospel Questions!" If that is
unauthoritative, tell me why I should trust your current prophet when he
answers the gospel questions you have today. Or isn't the gospel his
specialty?
> And is J. F. Smith's _The Way to Perfection_ one of the standard works
> mentioned above?
>
> I didn't think so.
<Yawn!> Same goes here. If J. F. didn't know "the way to perfection," why
did you listen to anything he said as your prophet?
> And is Bruce R. McConkie's _Mormon Doctrine_ one of the standard works
> mentioned above?
>
> I didn't think so.
Then why should I consider anything I read in "Mormon Doctrine" to be
"Mormon doctrine?" McConkie should have spared himself the time and
embarrassment, because apparently people are only listening to the "standard
works."
> **NOT ONE** of your precious quotes came from those documents which the
> Church has accepted as revealed scripture. Not one.
Oops. Please rephrase your ill-considered, poorly-researched statement.
> Thus not one of them, nor all of them together, are in any way binding
> upon the Latter-day Saints.
Uh-oh. The entire Journal of Discourses suddenly became binding upon the
Latter-day Saints! Tell me when you get around to getting your second wife.
> > Notice I'm not trying to be anti-mormon here,
>
> Not much, you're not.
>
> > but am
> > using church-approved books and speeches by their own prophets and
> apostles.
>
> So what?
>
> None of them carry any official weight.
<Yawn> You're boring me.
<snip>
> Note also who made the change "to reflect the 'new' Mormon doctrine:" it
> was Bruce R. McConkie, the original author.
>
> He was present when the revelation was received, and it changed his
> views on the subject *instantly*.
What revelation? It was a press release! Call for reference to the actual
text of the revelation.
> So when you dredge up his 1966 opinion WHICH HE DISCARDED, you are being
> most irresponsible.
Please. I know you'd rather forget that there ever _was_ a 1966 edition of
"Mormon Doctrine." But there was. And when you shout like that, you make
me think I've touched a nerve.
> > So it is a bit of an embarrassment to mormons, and your concern is
> founded.
>
> Actually it is *un*founded. The delight with which you tell him what he
> wants to hear shows how cynically you are willing to exploit an
> opportunity to drum up hatred.
I'm drumming up nothing of the sort. I quoted *your* men of god, nothing
more. If you can't take that, then you confirm my suspicion that you would
rather forget BY et al, and that you are sorely embarrassed by the whole
fiasco.
> Can you find ***EVEN ONE*** quote from the authoritative, canonical
> scriptures of the Church to support your hate campaign?
Well, yes.
> Can you?
I already did.
> Because everything that is not to be found in those authoritative,
> canonical sources *IS* only the non-binding opinion of whoever said or
> wrote it.
Ouch. Now two authoritative, binding, canonical sources contradict! You're
now obligated both to ban blacks and welcome them. I can see why you are so
easily frustrated.
> And how do you know that He hasn't?
Call for evidence that he has.
> In the Church of Jesus Christ, which alone holds the keys of the
> vicarious work for the dead, we do something called "temple work." You
> might have heard of it.
Hmm ... "temple work" ... nope. Never heard of it.
> When the Priesthood ban was ended in 1978, it was ended immediately, not
> gradually, and for all time. That meant, inter alia,
"inter alia?" Let me rephrase that for you: "pompous posturing"
> that black Church
> members could, as soon as they received their own temple ordinances,
> immediately do all of the work for all of their deceased ancestors. As
> a result, all the black members of the Church who died prior to 1978
> have now received, poshumously, all of the blessings that were withheld
> from them while they were alive.
Oh, that makes it all better. That makes up for the years when they
couldn't!
> > The problem is that there is no coherent doctrine on the subject.
>
> Actually there's no doctrine on the subject at all, coherent or
> otherwise.
Right. I wish someone would enlighten us on this important subject.
> > No one
> > can give you a definitive answer for why the ban was instituted in the
> first
> > place.
>
> Thank you for admitting that all of the passages you cited were not
> definitive.
The passages I cited contradict each other. Maybe you can choose for me
which of the contradictory responses are correct. Oh! I forgot! It was
Brigham Young's, because his can be found in a "standard work" of the
church.
> In your entirely uninformed and hostile opinion.
Whoah there before you start bandying about words like "uninformed" and
"hostile."
A) Inform yourself about your own religion before you rush in anger to post
a reply
and
B) I suppose Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, J. F. Smith, and the pre-1978
Bruce R. McConkie were being hostile to current mormonry, because all I did
was repeat their words.
> Like so many other of
> the Church's critics, you've armed yourself with a pile of "useful"
> quotations without bothering to inform yourself either of their context
> or of what *really* happened subsequently. You and I both know that the
> only criteria on which you selected your quotes was their utility to
> your purpose.
I gave them the exact references so they could go inform themselves on the
context. You would rather I send the entire discourse and waste useful
bandwidth? Idiot. I chose the quotes because they offer an explanation of
the doctrine, which has been sorely lacking in the last 22 years. And I
warned you it would be ugly. Why didn't you simply stop reading if you
couldn't stomach the words of your previous leaders?
> I ask you this question: could you simply lean back in your chair and
> marshal ten paragraph-length quotes from the JD or other sources on the
> subject of faith, or repentance, or baptism? *These* are not minor bits
> of obsolete teaching, but the very first principles of the Gospel; do
> you care as much about them as you do about your oh-so-fashionable issue
> du jour?
Obsolete teaching? Only because current sensibilities are offended.
> Despite all the best (or worst) efforts of the wannabe demagogues, the
> issue that you are all trying to resurrect is dead. It is nothing more
> than an historical footnote, fading daily into deeper obscurity.
Wait, I thought you said these things weren't getting any harder to find ...
> The desperate attempts to make something of it before it is completely out
> of reach
"Completely out of reach" means completely forgotten. Look what is
happening to a "standard work" of the church! I trust now that you know
better you will fight to keep that obscurity from becoming a reality.
> that we see here almost weekly, simply show how hard up you
> all are for any really valid arguments against the Church of Jesus
> Christ.
Blather. Answer the argument instead of engaging in fallacies.
> Your argument rests upon the historical fallacy of "presentism." To
> judge the past by the standards of the present is foolish, ignorant and
> ultimately worthless.
Unfortunately you are stuck by your own definition of standard works.
Cheers.
Chuck
C&C
to every retort. You seem to have stopped at mine.
Let's see, my timestamp says:
Reply to George Williams: 7:12 PM
Reply to FAWNSCRIBE: 7:19 PM (7 minutes)
Reply to Bill Williams: 7:41 PM (22 minutes)
Reply to C&C: none!
Why not? It's now been over one hour and 15 minutes, and you were doing so
well before.
Are you running for your copy of JD 8, where George Q. Cannon calls the
Journals of Discourses a "standard work of the church?"
I'll wait while you verify that. But don't run away now, just when things
are getting interesting. Come on back and argue, or I won't ever listen to
anything you say again.
Chuck
C&C
> I'm only guessing here, but maybe there are some black people somewhere
> who actually spend some time thinking about matters other than race.
This is a nice, Christian thing to say about your brethren.
And hey, I'm still waiting for you to reply to my post. Those Journals of
Discourses must have been locked up in an obscure, hard-to-find place if it
is taking you this long. Hell, Bill Williams found it before you did!
Chuck
C&C
> Wrong again, Fawn. The Word of Wisdom is found in D&C, Section 89.
>
> That's part of the Standard Works, you know.
So is the Journal of Discourses! Now reply to my post. If I see you reply
to anything else first, you're going straight into my killfile.
Chuck
C&C
> Fawn, I have explained this to you before, with the utmost patience, and
> at considerable length.
And, it sounds like, considerable arrogance.
> The priesthood ban was policy. What was being practiced was that
> policy.
> The various explanations given for that policy were not doctrine, and
> were not practiced.
Well allow me to retort. Brigham Young's explanations came from the
Journals of Discourses, which were considered "standard works" in their
time. See my post below, for which you still have yet to reply. You sure
are taking your time.
Or are you as embarrassed at your ignorance concerning your own religion as
you are at the doctrine your religion practiced for so long a time?
Maybe someone just told you the Journals weren't considered "standard
works," and you swallowed that without ever cracking them open to
independently verify the claim. Maybe you wanted to believe they weren't
standard works because then you could simply dismiss them with a wave of
your hand, without actually having to address the speeches contained within.
Maybe. We'll never know, though, if you don't reply to my post. You seem
to be rescinding your argument with your silence. Speak out of turn, did
we?
Or maybe you took my advice and are educating yourself on all of the things
you don't know about your own religion.
If that is the case, we may never hear from you again.
Chuck
C&C
> > > And is the _Journal of Discourses_ one of the standard works
> mentioned
> > > above?
Yes, as any fool who has actually opened them can plainly see.
> "It is universally understood and unanimously accepted by everybody not
> committed to religious polemics that *only* a believer is in any
> position to expound a belief, because only a believer can determine what
> is primary or secondary in his or her belief system."
Ah the sweeping "universal" statement that is limited only to those "not
committed to religious polemics." I like partial universals as much as I
like things that are "unanimously accepted" only by a select group.
You not only need a religious education, but you need a remedial course in
logic!
> Please be aware that *we* won't be ignoring the current leaders of the
> Church, or the former ones.
No, but those who live one hundred years from now, when the "standard works"
of today are gathering dust in the attic, may feel free to conveniently
forget what today's "prophets" claim is doctrine because their 22nd century
sentiments are offended.
> We will be applying the same standard to
> both: measuring their words against revealed truth.
So long as you continue to define "revealed truth" as whatever you consider
to be the "standard works" of the day. Weak. Can't you come up with
anything better than that?
> Official Declaration 2 is now part of our scriptures, and is one of the
standards
> against which we measure the words of any leader. And using that as a
> standard, it is clear that Brother Brigham got some things wrong.
Uh oh. Brother Brigham seems to be safely ensconsed within the protection
of your "Standard Works" theory, but that's okay because an unbeliever
educated you on your own beliefs. But now how do you decide between two
contradictory "standard works?"
> But then, we never claimed that his every utterance was inspired, so
proving
> that he said some things that were not, is beating up *yet another*
> straw man.
Here again you reveal your ignorance of your own religion. Brigham Young
certainly seemed to be under the impression that his every utterance was
inspired. More quotes from the "Standard Works" of the Journals:
"I want you to have faith enough concerning myself and my Counsellors for
the Lord to remove us out of the way, if we do not magnify our calling, and
put men in our places that will do right. I had the promise, years ago,
that I never should apostatize and bring an evil upon this people. God
revealed that through Joseph, long before he died; and if I am not doing
right, you may calculate that the Lord is going to take me home . . . I am
going where He is, for I have that promise, and so have many others."
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:142
This does not seem to support your claim of fallibility, at least where
Brigham Young is concerned. Or was he also wrong on the claim that he
couldn't be wrong?
And what about this one:
"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them
and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know
the road to my office."
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:95
Wrong again, I suppose. What a fool he must be in your estimation.
Had enough yet? Here's another one:
"You may take the Quorums in this Church -- the First Presidency, the
Twelve, the Presidents of the High Priests, the High Councillors, and the
Presidents of the Seventies; and a person may go to each of these Quorums
for counsel upon any subject, and he will invariably receive the same
counsel. Why is this the case? Because they are all actuated by the same
Spirit. Do you know why some men give counsel different one from another?
Because they undertake to give counsel without the Spirit of the Lord to
dictate them. But when the Spirit dictates, then each one knows what to do,
and their counsel will be the same. Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, all the
Patriarchs and Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles, and every man that has ever
written the word of the Lord, have written the same doctrine on the same
subject, and you never can find that Prophets and Apostles clashed in their
doctrines in ancient days; neither will they now, if all would at all times
be led by the Spirit of salvation . . . There is no clash in the principles
revealed in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants;
and there would be no clash between any of the doctrines taught by Joseph
the Prophet and by the brethren now, if all would live in a way to be
governed by the Spirit of the Lord."
Brigham Young, 10/7/1857; JD 5:327
Uh oh, Brother McGregor. This is not good news for you or the church, if
everything Brigham said was true. But how could it not be? It was in one
of the "Standard Works!"
And Brother Heber C. Kimball begs to differ with you as well on the subject
of Brigham's alleged fallibility. Here is another pearl from one of the
"Standard Works:"
"I do not want half-hearted characters to labour with me . . . Are there any
such characters in this congregation? Yes, several, both men and women.
There are men and women ready to oppose brother Brigham in what he said last
Sunday. He told the truth of God in every word he spoke. Do you suppose
that he is so unwise to say a thing which he does not know to be true? He
understands what he speaks, and he looks before he jumps, and God Almighty
will lead him straight, and he will never stumble -- no, never, from this
time forth; nor will you, brother Hyde, if you will follow him; neither will
any other man."
Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:32
Are you a half-hearted character, as Brother Kimball implies? I agree with
Brother Kimball on this one, because I have independent verification: you
_still_ haven't replied to my post.
And now you are in the uncomfortable position of having to tell me that your
prophets and apostles were wrong on a great many things, all of which were
contained in an infallible "standard work" that has mysteriously disappeared
from the current list. And if you believe that, what kind of mormon are
you?
Next time look before you leap. Before you accuse the next person of being
an "ignorant anti," and dismiss them on that basis alone, take a moment to
ponder that that very person may have indeed given your church a serious,
honest effort and it came up short for them.
Oh, and what was that you said about pulling paragraphs from the Journals of
Discourses on any subject other than my "oh so fashionable issue du jour?"
I demand either a reply to my post in which you address my arguments or an
apology for your arrogant attacks.
But preferably both.
Chuck
C&C
> Let me ask you a question. You equate "curse" with "not receiving the
> priesthood."
>
> When God gave the priesthood *only* to the Levites was the rest of the
> world "cursed"? Were the Jews, the Benjaminites, all the rest of Israel
> equally cursed? Was the entire population of the earth cursed except
> for the few thousand Levites who received the priesthood?
This seems to me to be an honest reply from someone who has sincerely
struggled with the issue, instead of a "brother McGregor" knee-jerk
counter-attack, as it puts the issue into a broader perspective. Cdowis,
you appear to have given the issue a great deal of thought.
Mjordan, I would encourage you to continue your conversation with cdowis,
and I apologize for butting in. But I will lurk with interest ...
Chuck
C&C
Discourses is a "standard work" of the church.
But I'm still waiting for that reply from Brother McGregor, who seems to
have vanished into thin air just when things were heating up.
Would anyone like to offer any suggestions on what they think Brother
McGregor is doing with his time?
Here's what I think:
a) sticking his fingers in his ears and closing his eyes, babbling loudly so
that the external world never intrudes on his precious fantasies
b) yanking his usenet access so his unfounded claims will never be
challenged by a mere unbeliever
c) trying to come up with another definition of "standard works" so that it
excludes those statements of past leaders that he personally disagrees with
Good luck on whichever of these you might be up to, Brother McGregor. Come
back when you've learned something.
Chuck
C&C
> What pisses me off is that Charles is in the position of having to
> answer a very difficult question, when really it should be the
> responsibility of the church to come out and make an official statement,
> that effectively answers these types of valid questions. Things have
> happened, the church acts like they haven't, and we sit here and argue
> with each other trying to figure it out. Its so wrong.
I totally agree with you. But at least Charles has taken the time to offer
an explanation. That is more than we can say for the post-1978 church.
Chuck
Russell McGregor
... so then again, it cuts no ice. It is universally understood and
unanimously accepted by everybody not committed to religious polemics
that *only* a believer is in any position to expound a belief, because
only a believer can determine what is primary or secondary in his or her
belief system.
> > I can't imagine what comfort any black person would get from joining
a
> > church where seemingly everyone can't talk about it, won't talk it,
and
> > contradicts each other. And now I hear Brigham Young's own books
are
> hidden
> > or hard to find..
>
> Not hard to find, but they don't seem to want to find them anymore.
That's not true either.
> Here
> are some of the quotes I found when I was studying the matter
(warning, this
> gets ugly):
Which is, of course, why you are citing them.
> "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the
> Priesthood."
> The Prophet Joseph Smith, cited by President A. O. Smoot;
Berrett, "The
> Church and the Negroid People," Mormonism and the Negro, pg. 10
Let's see.
The standard works of the Church are the only books which are
authoritative and definitive of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, and binding upon the members of the Church
in matters of faith and morals.
The standard works consist of:
The Holy Bible
The Book of Mormon
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price
Look again; nope, _Mormonism and the Negro_ isn't one of them.
> "Let this Church which is called the Kingdom of God on the Earth; we
will
> summons the First Presidency, the Twelve, the High Council, the
Bishopric,
> and all the Elders of Israel, suppose we summons them to appear here,
and
> here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race
of
> Cain, that they shall come in with us, and be partakers with us of all
the
> blessings God has given to us. On that very day and hour we should do
so,
> the Priesthood is taken from this Church and Kingdom and God leaves us
to
> our fate."
> Brigham Young; February 5, 1852
And is this quote found in any of the standard works mentioned above?
I didn't think so.
> "Cain conversed with his God every day, and knew all about the plan
And is the _Journal of Discourses_ one of the standard works mentioned
above?
I didn't think so.
> "The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his
And is the _Journal of Discourses_ one of the standard works mentioned
above?
I didn't think so.
> "I have endeavored to give you a few items relating to the celestial
> kingdom of God and to the other kingdoms which the Lord has prepared
for his
> children. The Lamanites or Indians are just as much the children of
our
> Father and God as we are. So also are the Africans. But we are also
the
> children of adoption through obedience to the Gospel of his Son. Why
are so
> many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness?
It
> comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy
> Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when
all
> the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy
> Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and
they
> will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the
blessings
> which we are now entitled to."
> Brigham Young; August 19, 1866; JD 11:272
And is the _Journal of Discourses_ one of the standard works mentioned
above?
I didn't think so.
> "We had meeting[s] with several individuals among the rest, Black Jane
[who]
> wanted to know if I would not let her have her Endowments in the
Temple.
> This I could not do as it was against the Law of God, as Cain killed
Abel.
> All the seed of Cain would have to wait for redemption until all the
seed
> that Abel would have had, that may come through other men, can be
redeemed."
> Wilford Woodruff, Journal Entry October 16, 1894
And is Wilford Woodruff's journal one of the standard works mentioned
above?
I didn't think so.
> "The Lord said I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him,
and
> that mark will be seen upon the face of every negro upon the face of
the
> earth; and it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon
the seed
> of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not
receive
> the priesthood until the time of that redemption."
> Wilford Woodruff, from M. Cowley's Life of Wilford Woodruff, pg.
351
And is M. Cowley's _Life of Wilford Woodruff_ one of the standard works
mentioned above?
I didn't think so.
> "When they were cast out, there were many who did not join the
rebellious
> forces, but who were not valiant. Because of their lack of obedience,
they
> were not deprived of receiving bodies, but came here under
restrictions.
> One of those restrictions is that they were denied the priesthood.
They may
> come into the Church, but they are not privileged to obtain the
priesthood
> in this mortal life."
> J. F. Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:163
And is J. F. Smith's _Answers to Gospel Questions_ one of the standard
works mentioned above?
I didn't think so.
> "Not only was Cain called to suffer, but because of his wickedness .
. . a
> curse was placed upon him, and that curse has been continued through
his
> lineage and must do so while time endures."
> J. F. Smith, The Way to Perfection, pg. 101
And is J. F. Smith's _The Way to Perfection_ one of the standard works
mentioned above?
I didn't think so.
> "Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no
circumstances can
> they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty . . . the
lineage
> of Cain and of Ham are absolutely denied the Priesthood as far as this
> mortal life is concerned."
> Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pgs. 526-527, 479; 1966
edition
And is Bruce R. McConkie's _Mormon Doctrine_ one of the standard works
mentioned above?
I didn't think so.
> Whew. Is that enough?
Enough to accomplish what?
**NOT ONE** of your precious quotes came from those documents which the
Church has accepted as revealed scripture. Not one.
Thus not one of them, nor all of them together, are in any way binding
upon the Latter-day Saints.
> Notice I'm not trying to be anti-mormon here,
Not much, you're not.
> but am
> using church-approved books and speeches by their own prophets and
apostles.
So what?
None of them carry any official weight.
> I think you can see why they'd rather dismiss Brigham Young and why
they no
> longer actively study these portions of his talks. Note also that the
entry
> in "Mormon Doctrine" has now changed to reflect the "new" Mormon
doctrine.
> The above quote was taken from 1966.
Yes, note that indeed.
Note also who made the change "to reflect the 'new' Mormon doctrine:" it
was Bruce R. McConkie, the original author.
He was present when the revelation was received, and it changed his
views on the subject *instantly*.
So when you dredge up his 1966 opinion WHICH HE DISCARDED, you are being
most irresponsible.
> So it is a bit of an embarrassment to mormons, and your concern is
founded.
Actually it is *un*founded. The delight with which you tell him what he
wants to hear shows how cynically you are willing to exploit an
opportunity to drum up hatred.
> They will try to tell you that these were only the opinions of
fallible men,
And can you tell him any different?
Can you find ***EVEN ONE*** quote from the authoritative, canonical
scriptures of the Church to support your hate campaign?
Can you?
Because everything that is not to be found in those authoritative,
canonical sources *IS* only the non-binding opinion of whoever said or
wrote it.
> but these fallible men were supposed to be led by god. Why did he not
> reproach them for saying such things about his children?
And how do you know that He hasn't?
> Was there never a
> curse? If not, exactly what changed in 1978? Were the black spirits
who
> were born after 1978 somehow more worthy than their 1800 counterparts?
If
> not, why can they now enjoy something which was denied their
ancestors? If
> so, exactly how did they become more worthy?
Not one of your questions matters in the slightest. Do you know why?
Let me remind you of something that, in your tendentious haste, you have
evidently forgotten.
In the Church of Jesus Christ, which alone holds the keys of the
vicarious work for the dead, we do something called "temple work." You
might have heard of it.
When the Priesthood ban was ended in 1978, it was ended immediately, not
gradually, and for all time. That meant, inter alia, that black Church
members could, as soon as they received their own temple ordinances,
immediately do all of the work for all of their deceased ancestors. As
a result, all the black members of the Church who died prior to 1978
have now received, poshumously, all of the blessings that were withheld
from them while they were alive.
> The problem is that there is no coherent doctrine on the subject.
Actually there's no doctrine on the subject at all, coherent or
otherwise.
> No one
> can give you a definitive answer for why the ban was instituted in the
first
> place.
Thank you for admitting that all of the passages you cited were not
definitive.
> The church simply decided in 1978 to sweep this embarrassing
mess
> under the carpet without providing a rationale for either a) its
existence
> in the first place or b) why it was removed when it was.
>
> Chuck
In your entirely uninformed and hostile opinion. Like so many other of
the Church's critics, you've armed yourself with a pile of "useful"
quotations without bothering to inform yourself either of their context
or of what *really* happened subsequently. You and I both know that the
only criteria on which you selected your quotes was their utility to
your purpose.
I ask you this question: could you simply lean back in your chair and
marshal ten paragraph-length quotes from the JD or other sources on the
subject of faith, or repentance, or baptism? *These* are not minor bits
of obsolete teaching, but the very first principles of the Gospel; do
you care as much about them as you do about your oh-so-fashionable issue
du jour?
Despite all the best (or worst) efforts of the wannabe demagogues, the
issue that you are all trying to resurrect is dead. It is nothing more
than an historical footnote, fading daily into deeper obscurity. The
desperate attempts to make something of it before it is completely out
of reach, that we see here almost weekly, simply show how hard up you
all are for any really valid arguments against the Church of Jesus
Christ.
Your argument rests upon the historical fallacy of "presentism." To
judge the past by the standards of the present is foolish, ignorant and
ultimately worthless.
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
FAWNSCRIBE
The Holy Bible
The Book of Mormon
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price
Look again; nope, _Mormonism and the Negro_ isn't one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
It might not have been a standard work but neither is the WOW and you practice
that to the T..Look it was doctrine..the whole association of brethren
practiced it because it was a idea that came from your leadership..not because
each and every LDS got the same personal revelation..quit saying that horse
manure of a doctrine wasn't.It was
fawnie
FAWNSCRIBE
And is this quote found in any of the standard works mentioned above?
I didn't think so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then why was it withled RUSSY?
Why was something NOT in a standard work practiced by everyone as if it
were..SURELY you aren't telling me PERSONAL opinion leads the way people are
treated is it?
You are saying that..GASP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That if YOUNG said this and he was a PROPHEt and only 22 years ago they got
around to changing all this..that all that time it was only because the PROPHEt
was a BIGOT?
My oh MY what the worm does when it turns huh?
Fawn
Bill Williams
Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8a9h4u$e3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>>>> snip repetitions
And are the teachings of all the current General Authorities a part of the
standard works? I suppose we can ignore them as well.
Bill Williams
George Williams
>Look again; nope, _Mormonism and the Negro_ isn't one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>It might not have been a standard work but neither is the WOW and you
>practice
>that to the T..
Oops, Fawn. The Word of Wisdom is indeed in the Doctrine and Covenants of
both the LDS and the RLDS churches.
Maybe you want to compare the alleged negro doctrine to something else.
Regards,
Raleigh
*A pathological liar's enmity for those who will not believe him is surpassed
only by his contempt for those who do.
Russell McGregor
fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
>
> The Holy Bible
> The Book of Mormon
> The Doctrine and Covenants
> The Pearl of Great Price
>
> Look again; nope, _Mormonism and the Negro_ isn't one of them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
practice
> that to the T..
Wrong again, Fawn. The Word of Wisdom is found in D&C, Section 89.
That's part of the Standard Works, you know.
As for practicing it to a T: I have a confession to make. I eat too
much meat.
> Look it was doctrine..
Argument by mere assertion.
> the whole association of brethren
> practiced it because it was a idea that came from your leadership..
No, they *practiced* the Priesthood ban, which was *policy*. The bits
about "curse of Cain" and "not valid in the pre-existence" were
developed to *explain* the practice; they were not the basis for it.
And the mere fact that many or most Latter-day Saints may have believed
one or both of those explanations does not make either or both of them
doctrine.
> not because
> each and every LDS got the same personal revelation..
I never said they did. That is a straw man.
> quit saying that horse
> manure of a doctrine wasn't.It was
> fawnie
Please explain how you come to that conclusion.
Don't just assert it; explain it.
Russell McGregor
fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
>
> And is this quote found in any of the standard works mentioned above?
>
> I didn't think so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What does "withled" mean?
> Why was something NOT in a standard work practiced by everyone as if
it
> were..
Fawn, I have explained this to you before, with the utmost patience, and
at considerable length.
The priesthood ban was policy. What was being practiced was that
policy.
The various explanations given for that policy were not doctrine, and
were not practiced.
Understand this yet, Fawn?
Priesthood ban: policy. Not doctrine. Practiced.
Explanations for the ban: not revealed. Not doctrine. Not practiced.
> SURELY you aren't telling me PERSONAL opinion leads the way
people are
> treated is it?
> You are saying that..GASP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ACTually I'M not saying ANY such THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please STOP putting WORDS into my MOUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> That if YOUNG said this and he was a PROPHEt and only 22 years ago
they got
> around to changing all this..that all that time it was only because
the PROPHEt
> was a BIGOT?
> My oh MY what the worm does when it turns huh?
> Fawn
Certainly there is a lot of bigotry going on around here.
Russell McGregor
"Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8a9h4u$e3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Snip
> > Let's see.
> >
> > The standard works of the Church are the only books which are
> > authoritative and definitive of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus
> > Christ of Latter-day Saints, and binding upon the members of the
Church
> > in matters of faith and morals.
> >
> > The standard works consist of:
> >
> > The Holy Bible
> > The Book of Mormon
> > The Doctrine and Covenants
> > The Pearl of Great Price
Snip
> > And is the _Journal of Discourses_ one of the standard works
mentioned
> > above?
>
> >>>>>> snip repetitions
>
> And are the teachings of all the current General Authorities a part of
the
> standard works? I suppose we can ignore them as well.
>
> Bill Williams
Actually Bill, you are entitled to ignore whatever you like. The United
States is, so I am told, a free country, especially for those whose
views are "politically correct."
However, the Latter-day Saints won't be ignoring the General
Authorities. Do you recall what I said earlier?
"It is universally understood and unanimously accepted by everybody not
committed to religious polemics that *only* a believer is in any
position to expound a belief, because only a believer can determine what
is primary or secondary in his or her belief system."
Please be aware that *we* won't be ignoring the current leaders of the
Church, or the former ones. We will be applying the same standard to
both: measuring their words against revealed truth. Official
Declaration 2 is now part of our scriptures, and is one of the standards
against which we measure the words of any leader. And using that as a
standard, it is clear that Brother Brigham got some things wrong. But
then, we never claimed that his every utterance was inspired, so proving
that he said some things that were not, is beating up *yet another*
straw man.
Snip
Bill Williams
C&C <camn...@uswestnospam.net> wrote in message
news:gu_x4.1586$mF1....@news.uswest.net...
From the beginning of Volume VIII of the JofD:
REPORTED BY G. D. WATT AND J. V. LONG
AND HUMBLY DEDICATED TO THE LATTER-DAY
SAINTS IN ALL THE WORLD.
VOL. VIII.
LIVERPOOL:
EDITED AND PUBLISHED BY GEORGE Q. CANNON, 42, ISLINGTON
LONDON:
LATTER-DAY SAINTS' BOOK DEPOT, 30, FLORENCE STREET,
CROSS STREET, ISLINGTON.
1861[p.iii]
Preface
8:iii
The >>>>>Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works
of the Church<<<<<<, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with
joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector
of "the light that shines from Zion's hill."
We rejoice, therefore, in being able to present to the Saints another
completed Volume-the Eighth of the series; and, in doing so, we sincerely
commend the varied and important instructions it contains to their earnest
consideration.
THE PUBLISHER.[p.1]
John Taylor, Febrary 19, 1860
Man
Remarks by Elder JOHN TAYLOR, made in the Tabernacle,
Great Salt Lake City, February 19, 1860.
Reported By G. D. Watt
8:1
I am always pleased to hear brother Joseph Young speak, because, as the
Indian says, "he talks good talk;" and I always like to hear people talk
good talk, and things that are calculated to make one feel pleasant and
comfortable.
Bill Williams
>
> Chuck
>
>
R. L. Measures
<mjo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Again, straighten it out for me if I've got it wrong. This Curse of Cain, as
> far as the Mormons were concerned,was an indelible mark and black could not
> be admitted into the priesthood... until 1978.
>
> So logically the curse was upon every black baby born prior to 1978? My
> cursed mother gave birth to cursed children? And we all went to church and
> got the gospel of Jesus Christ from our ministers who themselves were cursed
> and couldn't have been priests in your Church anyway? ......
My guess is that if Martin had been a mormon, he would have bailed out
before his 14th birthday. Mormon doctrine is basically a labyrinth of
codswallop. .
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
Bill Williams
The Journal of Discourses is at www.concordance.com/jourdisc.htm, fully
searchable. That's how I found the passage.
Bill Williams
> Chuck
>
>
Bill Williams
Vincent H.
snip
> All blacks have an indelible mark, and so do whites. I am "indelibly"
> marked as a white person. Etc. The point I am making is that your
> "indelible mark" phrase is not a doctrine of the LDS church.
Is this really a serious, adult, rational explanation??
snip
> > So logically the curse was upon every black baby born prior to 1978?
>
> I think I answered your question.
If you read this Michael, he is totally serious, he really believes it.
snip
> Let me ask you a question. You equate "curse" with "not receiving the
> priesthood."
Well, for 100+ years church leaders spoke of the Blacks and the Curse of
Caine in the same sentences. For 100+ years, Blacks were denied the
priesthood. I don't think it is really that difficult of a concept to
equate.
> When God gave the priesthood *only* to the Levites was the rest of the
> world "cursed"? Were the Jews, the Benjaminites, all the rest of Israel
> equally cursed? Was the entire population of the earth cursed except
> for the few thousand Levites who received the priesthood?
Would it be similar logic to ask if, prior to 1978 was everyone on the
planet who wasn't LDS cursed or denied the priesthood? No, of course
not, anyone could join and if found "worthy could receive the
priesthood. But wait, no.. there was a group. African Americans. They
could join, they could be worthy, yet they would be denied the
priesthood. It is innapropriate to use this logic when in this case it
was a single group kept out, and not a bunch of them like it was back
then. According to Brigham God basically said anyone can have the
priesthood... as long as you are not black.
I wasn't around back during the days of the Levites, and I could not
presume to know how people felt about receiving or being denied the
priesthood. In these days however, I could possibly have an idea how a
Black gentleman and his family might feel if the God they had chosen to
worship was to discriminate against them because of something they had
nothing to do with, according to early teachings and doctrines of the
LDS church. It would destroy my faith in men and in God. I guess for
me it already has.
snip
What pisses me off is that Charles is in the position of having to
answer a very difficult question, when really it should be the
responsibility of the church to come out and make an official statement,
that effectively answers these types of valid questions. Things have
happened, the church acts like they haven't, and we sit here and argue
with each other trying to figure it out. Its so wrong.
Vincent H.
> Charles dowis
Vincent H.
categorically disagree with everything Russell says, but I know how he
gets when he is challenged. That man can argue anything for pretty much
as long as you have the energy, so you better store up on carbohydrates
and get ready for a long thread that feels like its going
nnnnnnooooooooowwheerrrrrrrrrrreeeeeee :)
No offense Russell, I actually meant it as a compliment to your verbal
veracity:)
Vincent H.
wrote:
C&C
> The Journal of Discourses is at www.concordance.com/jourdisc.htm, fully
> searchable. That's how I found the passage.
Well, how about that? I didn't know they were posted on the web! Thanks
again, Bill!
Well, Brother McGregor, that makes part of your job easier.
The backpedalling and spin-doctoring, however, may take some time ...
Chuck
Vincent H.
and explain things, because Charles is a member of the group we are in
fact talking about. If he cannot find a rational (to him) explanation
than he is forced to take a critical look at the churchs leaders and
their teachings. Again, it is unfortunate for him, and it is
unfortunate for us.
I'm going to sleep...
Vincent H.
C&C wrote:
>
> Vincent H. <vince...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > What pisses me off is that Charles is in the position of having to
> > answer a very difficult question, when really it should be the
> > responsibility of the church to come out and make an official statement,
> > that effectively answers these types of valid questions. Things have
> > happened, the church acts like they haven't, and we sit here and argue
> > with each other trying to figure it out. Its so wrong.
>
C&C
> Lol, carefull about baiting Russell McGregor... :) I pretty much
> categorically disagree with everything Russell says, but I know how he
> gets when he is challenged. That man can argue anything for pretty much
> as long as you have the energy, so you better store up on carbohydrates
> and get ready for a long thread that feels like its going
> nnnnnnooooooooowwheerrrrrrrrrrreeeeeee :)
Oh, I fully expect that. I will bow out when he starts repeating his wrong
assertions over and over again instead of contributing to the discussion.
But in the meantime, I would enjoy the "rational" discourse, as well as the
opportunity to allow him to make a fool out of himself ... again.
> No offense Russell, I actually meant it as a compliment to your verbal
> veracity:)
Don't you mean "tenacity?"
Chuck
C&C
> I agree with you but from a little different angle. Charles has to try
> and explain things, because Charles is a member of the group we are in
> fact talking about. If he cannot find a rational (to him) explanation
> than he is forced to take a critical look at the churchs leaders and
> their teachings. Again, it is unfortunate for him, and it is
> unfortunate for us.
And again I am forced to agree! But I would like to see the efforts that he
has undergone to reconcile two contradictory positions into one coherent
doctrine.
And if that effort turns out to be irrational, then he does indeed need to
take that critical look. It is something that all of us previous believers
have faced at some point in our lives.
>
> I'm going to sleep...
>
Sleep? What for?
Chuck
C&C
> A point of order: we didn't actively proselyte among black people until
> the Priesthood ban was lifted. Any black person who wanted to join the
> Church was welcome to do so, but we didn't go out and invite you. We've
> only been inviting you since the time that you *were* eligible to hold
> leadership positions.
Oh, well, that changes everything. So the original position was, "You're
welcome to come, but you're not invited."
I see now that the doctrine made sense all along.
> "Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
> (Brigham Young)
But what if Brigham was wrong about that one too?
Chuck
Russell McGregor
"C&C" <camn...@uswestnospam.net> wrote:
I've just waded through a slew of posts from Upchuck here, the burden
of all of which is something like, "when are you going to respond to my
post, huh?" One of them ticked off the elapsed time, while three of
them speculated as to what I was doing in the interim. Another
*ordered* me to respond to his post first, or else!!
Well, heil Upchuck!
Not that it's any of your business, but while you were being an
arrogant prat, I was at the gym, in blissful unawareness of the
existence of your underwhelming post. While you were taunting the
unheard ethernet, I was enjoying a nice dinner with my wife. And while
you were crowing about my inability to respond to your sophomoric
arguments, I was doing a little last-minute shopping for my niece's
engagement party tomorrow.
Your presumptuous and snide remarks are not only entirely mistaken,
they are also very poor Usenet behaviour. However, I shall attribute
them to your amply demonstrated ignorance, and forgive you. This time.
I recommend that you do not repeat your error.
> Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > ... so then again, it cuts no ice. It is universally understood and
> > unanimously accepted by everybody not committed to religious
polemics
> > that *only* a believer is in any position to expound a belief,
because
> > only a believer can determine what is primary or secondary in his
or her
> > belief system.
>
> Ah the old "it is clearly true ..." speech, by which, lacking any
support
> for the conclusion, the arguer attempts to embarrass the reader into
> accepting it. I do not accept your conclusion, so it cannot be
"universally
> accepted."
It is, as I said, "universally understood and unanimously accepted by
everybody *not committed to religious polemics*" (emphasis added.)
Since you clearly *are* committed to religious polemics, naturally I
don't expect you to accept it.
If you like, I can provide you with some non-partisan quotes from
people who actually know what they are talking about on this subject.
> Maybe in the future you will be more careful with your use of
> absolutes.
It was a quite adequately qualified statement.
> > > Here
> > > are some of the quotes I found when I was studying the matter
> > (warning, this
> > > gets ugly):
> >
> > Which is, of course, why you are citing them.
>
> Speak to the point or shut up.
I *was* speaking to the point -- my point, that is.
And the point I make in *every* post is that religious polemics are
*always* illegitimate.
> > Let's see.
> >
> > The standard works of the Church are the only books which are
> > authoritative and definitive of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus
> > Christ of Latter-day Saints, and binding upon the members of the
Church
> > in matters of faith and morals.
> >
> > The standard works consist of:
> >
> > The Holy Bible
> > The Book of Mormon
> > The Doctrine and Covenants
> > The Pearl of Great Price
>
> Ah, I love this argument. "Only the standard works are binding ..."
So how
> do they become standard works?
They become *the* Standard Works (in the special, LDS sense, as opposed
to the ordinary sense) by being accepted as such in conference.
And it happens that the above four volumes contain *all* of the
documents which the Church has accepted, in conference assembled, as
its canonical scriptures.
> Where is the revelation from god that says,
> "Please consider the Bible, BOM, D&C, and POGP the only authoritative
> sources from which I grant my knowledge"?
>
> In the absence of any such revelation, the answer is that the people
choose
> the "Standard Works." So what? People are fallible.
Nevertheless, the whole Church, as a body, has accepted those documents
*AND NO OTHERS* as its canonical scriptures.
> But for the sake of argument, let's allow that only the "Standard
Works"
> count. Here is a quote that might interest you:
>
> "The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard
works of
> the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with
joy
> every number as it comes forth from the press as an additional
reflector of
> `the light that shines from Zion's hill.'"
> George Q. Cannon, Preface to JD 8
Well gawrsh, I've never heard THAT one before.
At least -- not since lunchtime.
> Oh, that one's gotta hurt.
Not even slightly, Upchuck.
> Do you mean to tell me that even the infallible,
> unchanging "Standard Works" of the Church change with time?
Actually yes. For example, in 1978, the Church accepted Official
Declaration 2, which then became part of the Standard Works.
That's how it -- works.
> Educate yourself on your own religion, you idiot. And then read the
JD
> quotes again, in light of the revised "Standard Works."
Sorry, missed again.
I happen to have my JD open right now. Let's see what we find:
Starts ====>
Volume 11
OUR RELIGION IS FROM GOD.
Remarks by Elder John Taylor, made in the Tabernacle, Great
Salt Lake City, April. 7, 1866.
Reported by G. D. Watt.
(...)
This consideration led me to a few reflections in relation to this
matter. I had recourse to some of our dictionaries, to find out what
popular lexicographers said about it. I referred to the *standard
works* of several different nations, which I find to be as follows:--
Webster (American), "Religion includes a belief in the revelation of
his (God's) will to man, and in man's obligation to obey his command."
Worcester (a prominent American). 1. An acknowledgement of our
obligation to God as our creator. 2. A particular system of faith or
worship. We speak of the Greek, Hindoo, Jewish, Christian, and
Mahomedan religion.
Johnson (English), "Religion, a system of faith and worship."
Dictionary of the French Academy, "La croyance que l'on a de la
divinite' et le culte qu'on lue rend en consequence."
(P. 220, emphasis added.)
<===Ends
Did you get all that? Webster, Worcester, Johnson, and the Dictionary
of the French Academy are among the "standard works of several
different nations."
Now it happens that according to the *ordinary* usage of that phrase,
that is *exactly* what they are. A "standard work" is "a work of
recognised excellence," just as the _Journal of Discourses_, the
_History of the Church_, Parley P. Pratt's _Key to the Science of
Theology_ and many other books could be considered "standard works" of
Mormonism in that *same* ordinary sense.
But there is another sense, a special and limited sense, which only
Latter-day Saints apply to that phrase. That is when we say "Standard
Works" and mean *exactly* the same as "canonical scriptures."
I realise that not everyone is aware of the difference. Specifically,
people who know nothing at all about the faith and practice of the
Latter-day Saints, not to mention the common vocabulary of the members
of the Church, could not be expected to know this.
However, when someone poses as an "expert" on the subject, and takes it
upon himself to "educate" Latter-day Saints on their own religion, then
such ignorance is a serious, even fatal shortcoming.
However, given that you did *not* know it, I must take the blame for
the misunderstanding. So that I need not get involved in a tussle
about semantics with a rude boy, I will concede that the ambiguity is
my fault. I humbly apologise. Everywhere I said "standard works,"
please read "canonical scriptures."
Now neither George Q. Cannon nor any other publisher has the authority
to decree any document to be canonical scriptures to the Church of
Jesus Christ. Only the Church in conference assembled can do that.
The fact is that the JD was *never* presented to the Church to be
accepted as scripture, and indeed it was never *intended* to be
accepted as such. It was published *in England*, specifically so that
English Saints could read the same information that Utah Saints had the
chance to hear for themselves in conference. Nearly all of the copies
of the JD in the United States were brought there by immigrating
English Saints and returning missionaries.
> > And is the _Journal of Discourses_ one of the standard works
mentioned
> > above?
> >
> > I didn't think so.
>
> I suppose you are in a better position than George Q. Cannon to
determine
> what is and is not to be considered the "Standard Works." They were
> certainly considered "standard works" in their time.
I wonder if your equivocation is not deliberate. After all, you seem
to have noticed the difference in capitalisation.
Nevertheless, as I said above: let my statement be re-worded as, "and
is the _Journal of Discourses_ one of the canonical scriptures mentioned
above?
"I didn't think so."
> For the sake of space, I'll snip the rest of your arrogant, unfounded
> comments on the Journals of Discourses.
Er, Upchuck? My comments were well founded.
It is, however, possible that they were arrogant. After all, arrogance
is a subject upon which you display considerable expertise -- probably
the only one -- and so your opinion definitely carries some weight.
> Go back and read the quotes, moron.
> How is it possible that I, an unbeliever, can educate you on your own
> religion?
You haven't yet.
> > And is Wilford Woodruff's journal one of the standard works
mentioned
> > above?
> >
> > I didn't think so.
>
> You're the one who claims that Wilford was a prophet of god.
Apparently he
> was only "speaking the truth" when you agree with him.
See below. He was speaking the truth when his words agree with
*revealed* truth.
> > And is J. F. Smith's _Answers to Gospel Questions_ one of the
standard
> > works mentioned above?
> >
> > I didn't think so.
>
> Dear god,
That's "God."
> it's called "Answers to Gospel Questions!"
So? People wrote in asking gospel questions, and he answered them.
There's nothing wrong with the title; it expresses the contents quite
adequately.
> If that is
> unauthoritative, tell me why I should trust your current prophet when
he
> answers the gospel questions you have today. Or isn't the gospel his
> specialty?
Joseph Fielding Smith became the prophet in 1970. _Answers to Gospel
Questions_ was published from 1957 to 1966.
In case the significance of the dates escapes you, he wasn't the
prophet when he wrote it.
> > And is J. F. Smith's _The Way to Perfection_ one of the standard
works
> > mentioned above?
> >
> > I didn't think so.
>
> <Yawn!> Same goes here. If J. F. didn't know "the way to
perfection," why
> did you listen to anything he said as your prophet?
Because he wasn't the prophet when he wrote _The Way to Perfection_ in
1951.
As I have pointed out elswhere, there are two things that do *not*
happen when a man is called to be a prophet: all his opinions are not
immediately sanitised, and all his prior statements are not
retrospectively canonised.
> > And is Bruce R. McConkie's _Mormon Doctrine_ one of the standard
works
> > mentioned above?
> >
> > I didn't think so.
>
> Then why should I consider anything I read in "Mormon Doctrine" to be
> "Mormon doctrine?"
That's the whole point; you don't need to.
It's a reference book, nothing more. It's not a bad one, either, and
quite handy in one volume.
> McConkie should have spared himself the time and
> embarrassment, because apparently people are only listening to the
"standard
> works."
>
> > **NOT ONE** of your precious quotes came from those documents which
the
> > Church has accepted as revealed scripture. Not one.
>
> Oops. Please rephrase your ill-considered, poorly-researched
statement.
Okay. In the light of what I now know that I didn't know before, I'll
rephrase it.
**NOT ONE** of your precious quotes came from those documents which the
Church has accepted as revealed scripture. Not one.
Will that do?
> > Thus not one of them, nor all of them together, are in any way
binding
> > upon the Latter-day Saints.
>
> Uh-oh. The entire Journal of Discourses suddenly became binding upon
the
> Latter-day Saints!
Uh-oh. No it didn't.
> Tell me when you get around to getting your second wife.
Don't hold your breath.
On second thoughts...
Snip
> > None of them carry any official weight.
>
> <Yawn> You're boring me.
Funny, you seemed quite excited earlier.
> <snip>
>
> > Note also who made the change "to reflect the 'new' Mormon
doctrine:" it
> > was Bruce R. McConkie, the original author.
> >
> > He was present when the revelation was received, and it changed his
> > views on the subject *instantly*.
>
> What revelation? It was a press release! Call for reference to the
actual
> text of the revelation.
I don't have it. But what I do have is the following:
"I told the Lord if it wasn't right, if He didn't want this change to
come in the Church that I would be true to it all the rest of my life,
and I'd fight the world... if that's what He wanted.... I had a great
deal to fight, myself largely, because I had grown up with this thought
that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go
all the rest of my life till my death and fight for it and defend it as
it was. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that
there was no question about it." (Church News, January 6, 1979, p. 4.)
"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the
Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what
happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland
Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the
power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet .... And we all heard the
same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses
that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord."
(Bruce R. McConkie, "New Revelation," p. 128; both quoted in Cowan,
Richard O. _The Church in the Twentieth Century_, ch. 21.)
> > So when you dredge up his 1966 opinion WHICH HE DISCARDED, you are
being
> > most irresponsible.
>
> Please. I know you'd rather forget that there ever _was_ a 1966
edition of
> "Mormon Doctrine."
Not at all.
> But there was.
Yes, and it contained statements that McConkie subsequently discarded.
> And when you shout like that, you make me think I've touched a nerve.
If that's what you want to think, go right ahead. But if you continue
to disingenuously produce quotations which have been discarded, and in
fact repudiated, by their authors, I will continue to call you on it.
> > > So it is a bit of an embarrassment to mormons, and your concern is
> > founded.
> >
> > Actually it is *un*founded. The delight with which you tell him
what he
> > wants to hear shows how cynically you are willing to exploit an
> > opportunity to drum up hatred.
>
> I'm drumming up nothing of the sort.
Oh yes you are.
> I quoted *your* men of god, nothing more.
And are beside yourself with rage that I'm not letting get away with
pretending that their statements are doctrine.
> If you can't take that, then you confirm my suspicion that you would
> rather forget BY et al, and that you are sorely embarrassed by the
whole
> fiasco.
Not at all. If you were half as good at research as you imagine
yourself to be, you would know by now that I have one theme running
through all my posts, namely, the poverty of religious demagoguery.
> > Can you find ***EVEN ONE*** quote from the authoritative, canonical
> > scriptures of the Church to support your hate campaign?
>
> Well, yes.
Where?
> > Can you?
>
> I already did.
Oh no you didn't.
> > Because everything that is not to be found in those authoritative,
> > canonical sources *IS* only the non-binding opinion of whoever said
or
> > wrote it.
>
> Ouch. Now two authoritative, binding, canonical sources contradict!
No they don't. You lose, buckwheat.
> You're
> now obligated both to ban blacks and welcome them.
Only in your tendentious, spiteful, and inflammatory opinion.
> I can see why you are so easily frustrated.
Yes, religious hatred always frustrates me.
> > And how do you know that He hasn't?
>
> Call for evidence that he has.
Nah-ah. Your *unmarked* snippage (more substandard netiquette)
contained the following rhetorical question:
"but these fallible men were supposed to be led by [G]od. Why did [H]e
not reproach them for saying such things about [H]is children?"
*You* implied that you knew that He had not. Now *you* document your
implied assertion. Or else explain that you were *not* trying to imply
it.
> > In the Church of Jesus Christ, which alone holds the keys of the
> > vicarious work for the dead, we do something called "temple work."
You
> > might have heard of it.
>
> Hmm ... "temple work" ... nope. Never heard of it.
I'm not really all that surprised.
> > When the Priesthood ban was ended in 1978, it was ended
immediately, not
> > gradually, and for all time. That meant, inter alia,
>
> "inter alia?" Let me rephrase that for you: "pompous posturing"
Wrong! Go to the bottom of the class. I said "inter alia" because it
uses less bandwidth than "among other things."
Until some nit-picking twit comes along and tries to make an issue of
it, that is.
> > that black Church
> > members could, as soon as they received their own temple ordinances,
> > immediately do all of the work for all of their deceased
ancestors. As
> > a result, all the black members of the Church who died prior to 1978
> > have now received, poshumously, all of the blessings that were
withheld
> > from them while they were alive.
>
> Oh, that makes it all better. That makes up for the years when they
> couldn't!
Actually you're right: it does. If you believe that the Church is true.
And if you *don't* believe that the Church is true, then they weren't
missing out on anything anyway.
So what this *whole argument* boils down to is this: if the Church is
true, then the black members who lived through the time when they
couldn't hold the priesthood have now received all of those blessings,
and so the Priesthood ban no longer matters.
And if the Church isn't true, then nothing of value was really withheld
after all, so the Priesthood ban *never* mattered.
You can take your pick.
> > > The problem is that there is no coherent doctrine on the subject.
> >
> > Actually there's no doctrine on the subject at all, coherent or
> > otherwise.
>
> Right. I wish someone would enlighten us on this important subject.
As I have clearly shown above, it is no longer important.
> > > No one
> > > can give you a definitive answer for why the ban was instituted
in the
> > first
> > > place.
> >
> > Thank you for admitting that all of the passages you cited were not
> > definitive.
>
> The passages I cited contradict each other. Maybe you can choose for
me
> which of the contradictory responses are correct. Oh! I forgot! It
was
> Brigham Young's, because his can be found in a "standard work" of the
> church.
Sorry, no prizes for equivocating.
> > In your entirely uninformed and hostile opinion.
>
> Whoah there before you start bandying about words like "uninformed"
and
> "hostile."
Blind Freddie can see your hostility.
And you didn't know how Latter-day Saints use a common phrase like
"Standard Works" in a particular and narrow sense, so your whole
argument has been uninformed from the beginning.
> A) Inform yourself about your own religion before you rush in anger
to post
> a reply
I have, thank you.
And I shall be happy to enlighten you, if and when your mind is open on
the subject.
> and
>
> B) I suppose Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, J. F. Smith, and the
pre-1978
> Bruce R. McConkie were being hostile to current mormonry, because all
I did
> was repeat their words.
Sorry, I'm not falling for that ruse, either. They were telling us
what they knew, believed and thought then. They *weren't* deliberately
distorting and withholding evidence in order to manufacture an
accusation.
See the difference now?
Snip
> > I ask you this question: could you simply lean back in your chair
and
> > marshal ten paragraph-length quotes from the JD or other sources on
the
> > subject of faith, or repentance, or baptism? *These* are not minor
bits
> > of obsolete teaching, but the very first principles of the Gospel;
do
> > you care as much about them as you do about your oh-so-fashionable
issue
> > du jour?
>
> Obsolete teaching? Only because current sensibilities are offended.
GONG!!
It became obsolete in June, 1978, when the First Presidency and the
Twelve received revelation on the subject -- revelation which rendered
all the prior speculation, by members in high positions and low,
entirely obsolete.
> > Despite all the best (or worst) efforts of the wannabe demagogues,
the
> > issue that you are all trying to resurrect is dead. It is nothing
more
> > than an historical footnote, fading daily into deeper obscurity.
>
> Wait, I thought you said these things weren't getting any harder to
find ...
They're not. But they do *not* impact the lives of *any* Church
members, and there is *nothing you can do about it*.
> > The desperate attempts to make something of it before it is
completely out
> > of reach
>
> "Completely out of reach" means completely forgotten.
No, it means that you can no longer use it as a club to beat the Church
with.
There's a difference.
> Look what is
> happening to a "standard work" of the church!
Nothing.
> I trust now that you know
> better you will fight to keep that obscurity from becoming a reality.
In your dreams.
> > that we see here almost weekly, simply show how hard up you
> > all are for any really valid arguments against the Church of Jesus
> > Christ.
>
> Blather. Answer the argument instead of engaging in fallacies.
Engaging your fallacies -- equivocation, straw man, presentism -- *is*
answering the argument.
It answers the *whole* argument.
> > Your argument rests upon the historical fallacy of "presentism." To
> > judge the past by the standards of the present is foolish, ignorant
and
> > ultimately worthless.
>
> Unfortunately you are stuck by your own definition of standard works.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
> Cheers.
Hip hip...
> Chuck
R. L. Measures
<russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <20000309201600...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
> fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
> >
> > The Holy Bible
> > The Book of Mormon
> > The Doctrine and Covenants
> > The Pearl of Great Price
> >
> > Look again; nope, _Mormonism and the Negro_ isn't one of them.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > It might not have been a standard work but neither is the WOW and you
> practice
> > that to the T..
>
> Wrong again, Fawn. The Word of Wisdom is found in D&C, Section 89.
>
> That's part of the Standard Works, you know.
>
> As for practicing it to a T: I have a confession to make. I eat too
> much meat.
>
''The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural,
impure, or unholy practice.''
FAWNSCRIBE
>Look again; nope, _Mormonism and the Negro_ isn't one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>It might not have been a standard work but neither is the WOW and you
>practice
>that to the T..
Oops, Fawn. The Word of Wisdom is indeed in the Doctrine and Covenants of
both the LDS and the RLDS churches.
Maybe you want to compare the alleged negro doctrine to something else.
Regards,
Raleigh
>>>>>As soon as I typed it I remebered my MISTAKE..it is part of that vast
tome of reiteration of stuff..But the rest applies..why practice the Negro ban
if not doctrine..and why MILLIONS? WHY?
Because it was
fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
about "curse of Cain" and "not valid in the pre-existence" were
developed to *explain* the practice; they were not the basis for it.
And the mere fact that many or most Latter-day Saints may have believed
one or both of those explanations does not make either or both of them
doctrine.
>
something taught..THATS bad enough..to PRACTICE as * doctrine* a policy ( as
its so sweetly called now)..is akin to saying that the prophets can make any
inane utterance in ANY denigrating tone and the followers will do it even if it
flies in the face of scripture
fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
What does "withled" mean?
Understand this yet, Fawn?
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
>
Typo..the word was witheld and you knew it..but thats okay..the rest of your
sad apologetics stands as it is....a crock..LOL
Doctrine is what is TAUGHT..practicing what is TAUGHT as a Policy means it
fitsa the parameters of docrtine.
Your *patient* explanations do not mitigatethe fact that the leadership uttered
that racist nonsense..you UPHOLD what they say ( ala General authorty mandate
etc)..the BODY of your faith PRACTICED the *policy* and there was NO room for
divergence of view on whether one SHOULD do it.
ALL had to obey that *policy*
ALL, not a few.
The real truth is this..it was uttered, accepted, practiced, obeyed, and when
the embarrassment factor knocked the needle off the machine and the reach to
Brazil was insitituted it was RESCINDED.
To rescind apolicy means that it was practiced in the first place and with the
obvious APPROVAL of every last one of you who went along with it
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
From: "Vincent H." vince...@earthlink.net
Date: 3/9/2000 10:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <38C89D41...@earthlink.net>
Lol, carefull about baiting Russell McGregor... :) I pretty much
categorically disagree with everything Russell says, but I know how he
gets when he is challenged. That man can argue anything for pretty much
as long as you have the energy, so you better store up on carbohydrates
and get ready for a long thread that feels like its going
nnnnnnooooooooowwheerrrrrrrrrrreeeeeee :)
No offense Russell, I actually meant it as a compliment to your verbal
veracity:)
Vincent H.
>>>
Russ has incredible carbo munching ability for sure but he needs to take a pit
stop by a dictionary and read up on the word doctrine.
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
My guess is that if Martin had been a mormon, he would have bailed out
before his 14th birthday. Mormon doctrine is basically a labyrinth of
codswallop. .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pronouncements on how he should grow up to be until it was time that he wanted
to be a priest.THEN he would be told.."Not now boy, you just sit there and soak
up the spirit of the lord and when we get a sign that God wants you to
PARTCIPATE fully in what His plans are WE will let you know"
fawn
George Williams
>
> >>>>>As soon as I typed it I remebered my MISTAKE..it is part of that
>vast
>tome of reiteration of stuff..But the rest applies..why practice the Negro
>ban
>if not doctrine..and why MILLIONS? WHY?
>Because it was
>fawn
It is part of the peculiarity of the LDS Church that the RLDS don't get.
No RLDS teaching can be derived from anything other than our standard works. If
a new revelation comes along, for it to be taught and acted upon, it has to be
canonized and placed in the standard works.
The LDS seem to accept a revelation and teach it for a while--if it
works, they canonize it. If it doesn't, they don't. But in the interim, there
is a grey area in which it takes on the appearance of being doctrine.
Raleigh
*Consult not with a foole; for he cannot keepe counsell. Ecclefiafticus VIII:17
1611 KJV Do not consult with a fool, for he will not be able to keep a
secret. Sirach 8:17 1957 KJV (Revised) 5 words added.3 changed. Spelling
changed 3 words.
George Williams
>
>This is a nice, Christian thing to say about your brethren.
Considering the number of folks like you who tell LDS they aren't
Christians, I doubt any of them are anxious to live up to any of your
expectations.
FAWNSCRIBE
I agree with you but from a little different angle. Charles has to try
and explain things, because Charles is a member of the group we are in
fact talking about. If he cannot find a rational (to him) explanation
than he is forced to take a critical look at the churchs leaders and
their teachings. Again, it is unfortunate for him, and it is
unfortunate for us.
I'm going to sleep...
Vincent H.
C>>>>>
Wake UP..:)))
It is hard for ANY in anY faith system that demans almost unquestioned loyalty
to a human leader ( like the JWS do with their governingbody as well) to step
OUTSIDE and look in.
See OUTSIDE is very frightening to folks.
I love the book, Faith that hurts, faith that heals..there are characteristics
of people drawn to various positions WITHIN an organization and reasons etc
that are scripturally based and its a great read.
SOmeone who has all the vested interest in the Organization has little courage
left to look much at GOD
fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
No RLDS teaching can be derived from anything other than our standard works. If
a new revelation comes along, for it to be taught and acted upon, it has to be
canonized and placed in the standard works.
The LDS seem to accept a revelation and teach it for a while--if it
works, they canonize it. If it doesn't, they don't. But in the interim, there
is a grey area in which it takes on the appearance of being doctrine.
Raleigh>>>>
At least you accept it WAS doctrine..go run over and give Russ a heads up to
see it was too..he is hair splitting on the word *policy*.
If i work for a corpoation who has written bylaws, and yet the HEAD of that
corporation is the only one who can EFFECT policy that is upheld by the workers
or they get fired?
I dont care what you call it ...the FIRING is the key if not held to, not the
written words in a book that can be changed with the hot breath of an old
bigots mouth
Fawn
Tom Taylor
>
>> the whole association of brethren
>> practiced it because it was a idea that came from your leadership..
>
>No, they *practiced* the Priesthood ban, which was *policy*. The bits
>about "curse of Cain" and "not valid in the pre-existence" were
>developed to *explain* the practice; they were not the basis for it.
>And the mere fact that many or most Latter-day Saints may have believed
>one or both of those explanations does not make either or both of them
>doctrine.
>
Apparently ewe boy has never read the Book of Abraham.
Is the Pearl of Great Price no longer one of the "Standard Works?"
Abraham 1:25-27
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh,
the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the
manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and
judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly
to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations,
in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and
also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth,
and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the
Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have
the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim
it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by
their idolatry;
Tom
Tom Taylor
>
>And we all went to church
>and
>> got the gospel of Jesus Christ from our ministers who themselves were
>cursed
>> and couldn't have been priests in your Church anyway?
>
>
>Let me ask you a question. You equate "curse" with "not receiving the
>priesthood."
>
That is how LDS scriptures describe it. Have you never
read the Book of Abraham?
Abraham 1:25-27
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh,
the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the
manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and
judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly
to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations,
in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam,
and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings
of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as
pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not
have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would
fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led
away by their idolatry;
No Priesthood = cursed.
No Priesthood leads to idolatry
Logically, any church without the priesthood is cursed and
full of idolatry.
Tom
Russell McGregor
"C&C" <camn...@uswestnospam.net> wrote:
> Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Wrong again, Fawn. The Word of Wisdom is found in D&C, Section 89.
> >
> > That's part of the Standard Works, you know.
>
You win -- the 20 cent booby prize.
As I've demonstrated elsewhere, the JD is NOT part of the "Standard
Works" as Latter-day Saints designate their canonical scriptures.
> Now reply to my post. If I see you reply
> to anything else first, you're going straight into my killfile.
Oooh -- how SCARY!
As I said in my response to your oh so terribly important post: you've
made an arrogant prat of yourself.
And if you are arrogant enough to come on alt.religion.MORMON and
killfile any Mormon who disagrees with you -- or who chooses to reply
to others before you -- then be aware that that won't stop me from
demonstrating your errors to everyone else.
> Chuck
... you in the bin.
Russell McGregor
patience, and
> > at considerable length.
>
Heh heh heh.
Well, as arrogance is the one and only subject upon which you have
demonstrated your expertise, I will just have to defer to your greater
wisdom upon this subject.
> > The priesthood ban was policy. What was being practiced was that
> > policy.
> > The various explanations given for that policy were not doctrine,
and
> > were not practiced.
>
> Well allow me to retort. Brigham Young's explanations came from the
> Journals of Discourses, which were considered "standard works" in
their
> time.
Not in the same special sense that the scriptures are and were.
> See my post below, for which you still have yet to reply. You sure
> are taking your time.
That's rather funny, Upchuck.
> Or are you as embarrassed at your ignorance concerning your own
religion as
> you are at the doctrine your religion practiced for so long a time?
One of us has just been rather comprehensively embarrassed, yes.
> Maybe someone just told you the Journals weren't considered "standard
> works," and you swallowed that without ever cracking them open to
> independently verify the claim.
Wrong, Upchuck. I made it my business to know the difference between
the common phrase "standard works" and the special LDS sense of "*The*
Standard Works," a difference that has obviously escaped you.
> Maybe you wanted to believe they weren't
> standard works because then you could simply dismiss them with a wave
of
> your hand, without actually having to address the speeches contained
within.
Or not.
> Maybe. We'll never know, though, if you don't reply to my post. You
seem
> to be rescinding your argument with your silence.
A silence that lasted -- what, eight hours?
This is a newsgroup, not a chat room. There's no time limit on
responses. I've had posts responded to a week or more later.
I notice that your silence in response to my reply has lasted *just* as
long. Does this mean that you are "rescinding your argument with your
silence?"
> Speak out of turn, did we?
Since you asked -- no.
> Or maybe you took my advice and are educating yourself on all of the
things
> you don't know about your own religion.
Ha ha ha! That's funny, Upchuck.
If you ever tell me something I didn't already know, I'll be sure to
tell you.
> If that is the case, we may never hear from you again.
You wish.
> Chuck
Russell McGregor
Heh heh heh.
Or not.
I notice that your silence in response to my reply has lasted even
longer. Does this mean that you are "rescinding your argument with
C&C
> "Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
> (Brigham Young)
Then why do you keep expounding yours?
By the way did that quote come from any of the "standard works," you had
mentioned above--if not wouldn't that be a little hypocritcal of you?
ADAMONDIOM
>What pisses me off is that Charles is in the position of having to
>answer a very difficult question, when really it should be the
>responsibility of the church to come out and make an official statement,
>that effectively answers these types of valid questions. Things have
>happened, the church acts like they haven't, and we sit here and argue
>with each other trying to figure it out. Its so wrong.
>
>Vincent H.
Amen......Vince. I am waiting for my Afro- American Christian Nephew to find
out about it and bring it up to me. So far it hasnt come up yet. When I see
what a better man he is than some of my white LDS brethern who were valient in
the pre-existance it makes me shiver.. I am at a loss at what to tell him
except the truth. But my conclusion to the whole fiasco is different from
other LDS's perception. ......kathy..
Ldzion
>I shudder to
>think where Civil Rights would be if Martin Luther King Jr. became a Mormon
>and therefore wouldn't have had a pulpit to speak from.
I for one who was raised a Utah mormon consider Martin Luther King a great
man.
This scripture makes me think of him.
Isaiah 19:20
20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the
land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and
he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
James
ADAMONDIOM
>I agree with you but from a little different angle. Charles has to try
>and explain things, because Charles is a member of the group we are in
>fact talking about. If he cannot find a rational (to him) explanation
>than he is forced to take a critical look at the churchs leaders and
>their teachings. Again, it is unfortunate for him, and it is
>unfortunate for us.
>
>I'm going to sleep...
>
>Vincent H.
>
>C>>>>>
>Wake UP..:)))
>It is hard for ANY in anY faith system that demans almost unquestioned
>loyalty
>to a human leader ( like the JWS do with their governingbody as well) to step
>OUTSIDE and look in.
>See OUTSIDE is very frightening to folks.
This is so true. God has to break the walls down sometimes to put a person on
the outside so he can look in and it is a very different view. Andddddd
!!!.........Fortunetly very freeing......It frees one from all that judgemental
bunk and conditioning. And frees one to totally LOVE...Not that one cannot
love inside the church. I know of so much love that goes on within the church.
But total freedom comes when one lets go of all that man made Bull _____ !
>I love the book, Faith that
hurts, faith that heals..there are
>characteristics
>of people drawn to various positions WITHIN an organization and reasons etc
>that are scripturally based and its a great read.
>SOmeone who has all the vested interest in the Organization has little
>courage
>left to look much at GOD
>fawn
Sounds like a good book. I'll have to read it. Maybe I will see
myself........kathy.....
C&C
>
> What pisses me off is that Charles is in the position of having to
> answer a very difficult question, when really it should be the
> responsibility of the church to come out and make an official statement,
> that effectively answers these types of valid questions. Things have
> happened, the church acts like they haven't, and we sit here and argue
> with each other trying to figure it out. Its so wrong.
Finally a clear voice amidst the confusion!! Vincent I don't know who you
are--but you rock! I knew someone out there had to have a rational thought
processor. Thanks for taking the time to reply to this!!
C
George Williams
(FAWNSCRIBE) writes:
>At least you accept it WAS doctrine..go run over and give Russ a heads up to
>see it was too..he is hair splitting on the word *policy*.
>If i work for a corpoation who has written bylaws, and yet the HEAD of that
>corporation is the only one who can EFFECT policy that is upheld by the
>workers
>or they get fired?
>I dont care what you call it ...the FIRING is the key if not held to, not the
>written words in a book that can be changed with the hot breath of an old
>bigots mouth
>Fawn
Fawn, there is nothing for me to accept. The RLDS and LD-S had long since
split from the defunct LDS Church at Nauvoo when the problem with the doctrine
about blacks came into the LD-S Church. I need accept nothing.
You have to understand, RLDS are like sola scriptura protestants with an
open canon. the LD-S are more like Catholics, in that they may receive as
doctrine words of the prophet that have not been canonized. You can call it
"prophetic instruction" to ape the term "apostolic tradition" in the Roman
Catholic Church. Most RLDS I know see the Utah Church as a carbon copy of the
Catholic Church in almost every way--a pyramidal hierarchy inserted between God
and man with a prophetic bottle-neck at the apex, and an organization with
effective secular authority (especially in heavily-LDS areas) to discipline and
herd the members to keep them in line. My feeling is that if the Catholic
Church is so bad, why imitate it?
The structure of the LDS Church was never intended to be evil, nor was the
structure of the Catholic Church. But my nonPC attitude is one of
"outcome-based." I look at what has happened, not at how pure and holy the
origin is supposed to be.
And this by no means praises the RLDS Church, nor any protestant church.
Many an RLDS priest and Methodist minister has envied the power that an LDS or
Catholic priest has over his flock--these envious ones are tired of being
driven from pillar to post by free-thinking and hugely disobedient
congregations. Many of the most powerful (read "rich") members of these
congregations don't even follow the most basic rules of civilized conduct, nor
have they any morals at all, but they demand their ministers be more clean
and starchy than a Mormon missionary.
Regards,
Raleigh
Regards,
C&C
> >This is a nice, Christian thing to say about your brethren.
>
> Considering the number of folks like you who tell LDS they aren't
> Christians, I doubt any of them are anxious to live up to any of your
> expectations.
Uh, Raleigh, please point me to the post in which I said mormons aren't
Christians. My point is, if you are claiming to be a Christian, then act
like one.
Chuck
C&C
> It is part of the peculiarity of the LDS Church that the RLDS don't
get.
> No RLDS teaching can be derived from anything other than our standard
works. If
> a new revelation comes along, for it to be taught and acted upon, it has
to be
> canonized and placed in the standard works.
> The LDS seem to accept a revelation and teach it for a while--if it
> works, they canonize it. If it doesn't, they don't. But in the interim,
there
> is a grey area in which it takes on the appearance of being doctrine.
Good point, George. I'd like to hear Brother McGregor's rebuttal.
Chuck
C&C
> Apparently ewe boy has never read the Book of Abraham.
> Is the Pearl of Great Price no longer one of the "Standard Works?"
Who knows? Brother Russell keeps redefining the "Standard Works" to mean
whatever he wants them to mean, so he doesn't have to answer each quote
individually, and can leap them all into one big lump and trash the whole
shebang.
But when you do that, you throw away a crucial part of your own history and
a deeper understanding of yourself and your religion.
But Brother Russell doesn't want that. He wants safe, oft-repeated but
little-examined beliefs. He would rather just repeat this garbage than
subject it to a critical examination.
Chuck
C&C
that mean that you make twice as much sense? Apparently not ...
Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
snip
> > And, it sounds like, considerable arrogance.
>
> Heh heh heh.
>
> Well, as arrogance is the one and only subject upon which you have
> demonstrated your expertise, I will just have to defer to your greater
> wisdom upon this subject.
A wise move.
snip
> > Well allow me to retort. Brigham Young's explanations came from the
> > Journals of Discourses, which were considered "standard works" in
> their
> > time.
>
> Not in the same special sense that the scriptures are and were.
Admission of defeat by sidestepping the argument. You lose credibility when
you redefine your own terms in "special senses" after you've been shown that
you are wrong. If you continue to do this, then I can't accept any of your
current definitions. How do I know that you won't just change them again
later?
But I suppose that's symptomatic of exactly the kind of thinking that leads
to the problem in the first place. "We're embarrassed by Brother Brigham,
so let's sanitize him!" This is exactly what your leaders did when they
published a Brigham Young "primer" that included no references to plural
marriage at all. "Presentism" at its finest.
<snip stupidity>
> > Or are you as embarrassed at your ignorance concerning your own
> religion as
> > you are at the doctrine your religion practiced for so long a time?
>
> One of us has just been rather comprehensively embarrassed, yes.
Finally you admit being thoroughly embarrassed on your lack of knowledge.
It took you long enough.
> > Maybe someone just told you the Journals weren't considered "standard
> > works," and you swallowed that without ever cracking them open to
> > independently verify the claim.
>
> Wrong, Upchuck. I made it my business to know the difference between
> the common phrase "standard works" and the special LDS sense of "*The*
> Standard Works," a difference that has obviously escaped you.
Oh right, that amazing reply by which you neatly redefined what you really
meant in the first place, and then asked me to substitute "canon" for
"standard works." Semantics and word games are the last refuges of someone
desperately seeking an argument.
<snip>
> > Maybe. We'll never know, though, if you don't reply to my post. You
> seem
> > to be rescinding your argument with your silence.
>
> A silence that lasted -- what, eight hours?
>
> This is a newsgroup, not a chat room. There's no time limit on
> responses. I've had posts responded to a week or more later.
>
> I notice that your silence in response to my reply has lasted even
> longer. Does this mean that you are "rescinding your argument with
> your silence?"
I work during the day. Where are you that you can reply so often during
these times? Does your boss know?
snip
> If you ever tell me something I didn't already know, I'll be sure to
> tell you.
You are under the delusion that you know everything, so I won't hold my
breath. But I do find it amusing that Brother Russell claims that he is so
right about so many things while also claiming that Brother Brigham was so
wrong. Is that how mormons operate, by disparaging their original leaders?
Or is Russell an anomaly?
> > If that is the case, we may never hear from you again.
>
> You wish.
That's the first correct thing that has come out of your mouth.
Congratulations!
Chuck
Peggy Rogers
>
> I give up... shit I give up!! I tried to answer you as best I could,
> and even had responded to your entire post, before really getting pissed
> knowing that you would not see my points and refute my comments with the
> very sources and logic that created the mess in the first place...
> You see things in a manner that I do not, although I once did. You are
> like talking to a person from a different planet, literally almost a
> different language and customs pattern, and I obviously will not make
> sense to you. So you win...:) You are so so far gone, you will never
> make it out of there... I think this is exactly what you want though so
> have fun and good luck with it. I am just curious thoug, were you born
> and raised into the church, or converted at an early age?
>
> Vincent H.
Vincent -- if I could make a quiet suggestion here: I'd strongly
recommend a book called _Stages of Faith_ by James Fowler. You can
find some information about the book at this website, particularly
as the ideas apply to Mormonism. These sorts of breakdowns in
communication are not just common, they're inevitable, among people
who have such differing viewpoints. But seeing how the whole thing
fits together sometimes helps us to feel better about a frustrating
situation.
http://home.earthlink.net/~bonniethomp/jeff/stages
Peggy
C&C
Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I've just waded through a slew of posts from Upchuck here, the burden
> of all of which is something like, "when are you going to respond to my
> post, huh?" One of them ticked off the elapsed time, while three of
> them speculated as to what I was doing in the interim. Another
> *ordered* me to respond to his post first, or else!!
Blah blah blah get to the issues.
> Well, heil Upchuck!
Petty namecalling #1. What about the issues?
> Not that it's any of your business, but while you were being an
> arrogant prat, I was at the gym, in blissful unawareness of the
> existence of your underwhelming post. While you were taunting the
> unheard ethernet, I was enjoying a nice dinner with my wife. And while
> you were crowing about my inability to respond to your sophomoric
> arguments, I was doing a little last-minute shopping for my niece's
> engagement party tomorrow.
Oh, I seem to have struck that nerve again. Enough to extract a detailed
accounting of his whereabouts. Let's go back ... somehow, while Brother
Russell is cruising along, replying to every post down a direct line ... he
stops at mine and takes a long hiatus. I don't buy your "blissful
unawareness." Are you telling me you wake up every morning at 4:00 am to
scan alt.mormon.religion? Or did you just need the time to prepare to my
"underwhelming reply?"
> Your presumptuous and snide remarks are not only entirely mistaken,
> they are also very poor Usenet behaviour.
A remark about poor behavior that includes the words "presumptuous," "snide
remarks," and "entirely mistaken." Teach me some more about poor behavior,
Brother Russell.
> However, I shall attribute
> them to your amply demonstrated ignorance, and forgive you. This time.
You attribute everything else to ignorance, so why should this situation be
any different? That's how you operate. You think ad hominems allow you to
avoid the issue. Here's an idea -- stick to the issues.
> I recommend that you do not repeat your error.
Or what? You're going to come over and beat me up? Why haven't you got
around to addressing the issues?
<snip to relevance>
> It is, as I said, "universally understood and unanimously accepted by
> everybody *not committed to religious polemics*" (emphasis added.)
> Since you clearly *are* committed to religious polemics, naturally I
> don't expect you to accept it.
Hmm. Again you argue by simple dismissal. Well, instead of dismissing you
I will answer: "universally understood and unanimously accepted" are
absolutes. Then you proceed to limit their "universality" by qualifying
them with that claptrap about "religious polemics." Translation: "no one
but those who agree with me are entitled to an opinion about my religion."
So you have given me partial universals and a unanimous acceptance that only
a few actually accept. Try again.
> If you like, I can provide you with some non-partisan quotes from
> people who actually know what they are talking about on this subject.
I don't care about "non-partisan quotes." I care about the truth. Is it
true, or is it not? That is the only thing that matters here. Don't give
me the opinions of other people. If you routinely reject the words of your
own prophets as wrong, why should you expect me to give any consideration to
the opinions of any "non-partisan?"
And your statement, supported by qualified universals and a strikingly
un-unanimous acceptance, simply isn't true. You reveal a surprising bias
when you restrict your discussion on "beliefs" only to the "true believers."
Why not open your mind to alternative possibilities instead of simply
yammering on with your friends, with all of you nodding your heads?
> > Maybe in the future you will be more careful with your use of
> > absolutes.
>
> It was a quite adequately qualified statement.
Don't use absolutes if it is your intent to "qualify." It is a sneaky trick
to gain the power of an absolute statement while at the same time still
restricting it to a definition that suits your needs. Please learn what an
absolute is before you next use one.
> I *was* speaking to the point -- my point, that is.
Speak to the issues or shut up.
> And the point I make in *every* post is that religious polemics are
> *always* illegitimate.
Your point is that *asterisks* imply an importance where none actually
exists. Suggestion: avoid ad hominems like "religious polemics" in which
you try to dismiss the opponent's argument as a whole and instead try to
address the individual issues raised in the "religious polemics" post.
Only that way can you ever hope to convince anyone that your argument has
merit.
snip
> > Ah, I love this argument. "Only the standard works are binding ..."
> So how
> > do they become standard works?
>
> They become *the* Standard Works (in the special, LDS sense, as opposed
> to the ordinary sense) by being accepted as such in conference.
Ah, now we come to the spin-doctoring and back-pedaling, which I already
predicted in one of my "poor behavior" posts. Here it is, option "c" for my
suggestions as to what you were actually doing last night:
"c) trying to come up with another definition of "standard works" so that it
excludes those statements of past leaders that he personally disagrees with"
How about that? I was right all along. Of course, you were forced to
redefine "Standard Works" because of George Q. Cannon's words to the preface
of JD 8. This really hurts your credibility, Russell. If you keep
answering my arguments by redefining your original meaning, then I have no
reason to continue the conversation. How do I know you won't pull the same
fast one at a later date, on some other issue? Try to be clearer in the
future or you'll end up embarrassed again.
> And it happens that the above four volumes contain *all* of the
> documents which the Church has accepted, in conference assembled, as
> its canonical scriptures.
So what? By your own arguments, all people are fallible. How does coming
together in a group and raising their hands somehow make them infallible? I
brought this up in the previous post and am still waiting for an answer.
Still researching?
Would you like to redefine "all people are fallible" to "all people are
Fallible," which means that in a group they are infallible?
Show me the revelation where god chooses the four works you mentioned, and
makes them infallible, and I'll yield the point.
> Nevertheless, the whole Church, as a body, has accepted those documents
> *AND NO OTHERS* as its canonical scriptures.
Are you suffering from an aversion to answering? Apparently you think that
your statement somehow gains more legitimacy with repetition. Answer the
question.
> Well gawrsh, I've never heard THAT one before.
Obviously, or you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of having to
redefine your original meaning.
> At least -- not since lunchtime.
Oh so funny.
> > Oh, that one's gotta hurt.
>
> Not even slightly, Upchuck.
Petty namecalling #2.
> > Do you mean to tell me that even the infallible,
> > unchanging "Standard Works" of the Church change with time?
>
> Actually yes. For example, in 1978, the Church accepted Official
> Declaration 2, which then became part of the Standard Works.
>
> That's how it -- works.
Admission of defeat by redefining my statement. The least you can do is
restrict your redefinitions to your own statements. The Journal of
Discourses ranked as a "Standard Work" of the church in the time of George
Q. Cannon. Why then has it dropped from the current list? I wonder which
"Work" is next on your hit list. Don't worry, since your definition of
"Standard Works" is fluid, you can just redefine it with the next change.
snip
> I happen to have my JD open right now. Let's see what we find:
>
> Starts ====>
> Volume 11
> OUR RELIGION IS FROM GOD.
> Remarks by Elder John Taylor, made in the Tabernacle, Great
> Salt Lake City, April. 7, 1866.
> Reported by G. D. Watt.
But as this isn't in a Standard Work, John Taylor is probably wrong.
If you would have kept reading instead of merely opening and closing the
book, you would find the following preface:
"The Journal of Discourses is a vehicle of doctrine, counsel, and
instruction to all people, but especially to the Saints."
Preface to JD 11
Apparently Brigham Young shouldn't have wasted his breath. Because you're
rejecting all of this doctrine, counsel, and instruction that happens to
disagree with your own current views. "Presentism" indeed!
> This consideration led me to a few reflections in relation to this
> matter. I had recourse to some of our dictionaries, to find out what
> popular lexicographers said about it. I referred to the *standard
> works* of several different nations, which I find to be as follows:--
And yet another definition of the term "standard works!" How many more do
you have up your sleeve?
> Webster (American), "Religion includes a belief in the revelation of
> his (God's) will to man, and in man's obligation to obey his command."
>
> Worcester (a prominent American). 1. An acknowledgement of our
> obligation to God as our creator. 2. A particular system of faith or
> worship. We speak of the Greek, Hindoo, Jewish, Christian, and
> Mahomedan religion.
>
> Johnson (English), "Religion, a system of faith and worship."
>
> Dictionary of the French Academy, "La croyance que l'on a de la
> divinite' et le culte qu'on lue rend en consequence."
> (P. 220, emphasis added.)
> <===Ends
So? In the future please provide a point when you provide a list of
examples.
> Did you get all that? Webster, Worcester, Johnson, and the Dictionary
> of the French Academy are among the "standard works of several
> different nations."
Why? By whose consideration? Did the members of those nations ratify these
books in congregation assembled?
> Now it happens that according to the *ordinary* usage of that phrase,
> that is *exactly* what they are.
Surrounding a word with asterisks doesn't make it true. Provide evidence
that the "ordinary usage" of the phrase yields the definition you provided.
I can't recall hearing the term outside of the mormon church.
> A "standard work" is "a work of
> recognised excellence," just as the _Journal of Discourses_, the
> _History of the Church_, Parley P. Pratt's _Key to the Science of
> Theology_ and many other books could be considered "standard works" of
> Mormonism in that *same* ordinary sense.
More unsupported definitions. Brother Russell has been busy. And now we
have two definitions of "standard works," an "ordinary sense" and a "special
sense." Oh, but don't let me interrupt your backpedalling ...
> But there is another sense, a special and limited sense, which only
> Latter-day Saints apply to that phrase. That is when we say "Standard
> Works" and mean *exactly* the same as "canonical scriptures."
Oh I see. Capitalizing it changes the meaning. How do you recognize the
capitals when you are talking to each other?
> I realise that not everyone is aware of the difference. Specifically,
> people who know nothing at all about the faith and practice of the
> Latter-day Saints, not to mention the common vocabulary of the members
> of the Church, could not be expected to know this.
You thought all along I was enemy to your church. Why then would you expect
me to know the "common vocabulary" of its members? The fact that you
previously spoke to me in this manner, then, demonstrates either one of two
possibilities:
a) you thought all along that I wasn't an anti-mormon, and knew such subtle
things as "the common vocabulary" spoken by its members. This means you
lied when you said you thought I was an anti.
or
b) you tought all along that I was an anti-mormon, but back-pedalled and
redefined your terms when you were embarrassed by your own ignorance. This
means that you are lying now.
Take your pick. And backpedal faster, Brother Russell, because the truth is
catching up.
> However, when someone poses as an "expert" on the subject, and takes it
> upon himself to "educate" Latter-day Saints on their own religion, then
> such ignorance is a serious, even fatal shortcoming.
Ohh! My heart ... no, wait. Brother Russell was speaking in the "special
sense" of the word "fatal."
> However, given that you did *not* know it, I must take the blame for
> the misunderstanding.
Of course you must. You were the one who brought the term up in the first
place. And now that you were embarrassed on your lack of knowledge, the
backpedalling and semantic games commence in force.
> So that I need not get involved in a tussle
> about semantics with a rude boy,
Petty namecalling #3. And too late. You were the one who initiated the
semantics games. I was just responding to terms which you were the first to
introduce. When you use terms that may have "special" and "ordinary"
senses, it is your obligation to clarify which of the two senses you mean
_when you introduce them_. Failure to do so followed by vigorous
back-pedalling just costs you further credibility.
> I will concede that the ambiguity is
> my fault. I humbly apologise. Everywhere I said "standard works,"
> please read "canonical scriptures."
Okay. Now answer my argument about canonical scriptures, or point to a
reference inside the canonical scriptures where your god defines which ones
they are. Because if this reference occurs anywhere outside your own
re-definition of "standard works" (ie the special sense), then it is subject
to error, and the choice of which "standard works" to include in their
sphere of infallibity may be wrong.
If you can't point to a single reference defining your "canon" inside your
own "canon," then your "canon" is fallible, on its own definition!
I'll wait for your reply.
> Now neither George Q. Cannon nor any other publisher has the authority
> to decree any document to be canonical scriptures to the Church of
> Jesus Christ. Only the Church in conference assembled can do that.
And here I thought god entered somewhere into the equation. Or have you
stopped listening to him, and only listen to the votes of your brethren?
And if it's not too much too ask, why have you neatly removed your god's
input from the process of canonization? Tell me what happens when your god
reveals a principle required for the eternal salvation of his people, and
then the church, in conference assembled, rejects it.
You seem to think that action will be binding on your god, because this
principle, which he requires for your salvation, won't be canon unless the
church approves it. Your poor god, then, has to wait in silence and can
only hope that his requirement will be ratified by the people who claim to
obey him!
This certainly sounds like a nice religion to join.
Here's what Joseph Smith has to say about your idea of canon:
"The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what he
tells us to do. It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or
unpopular. I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone
in it."
TPJS, pg 332
Joseph here seems to try to obey his god even if the principle is so
unpopular it is never "canonized." What matters for Joseph is not whether
the matter happens to fit inside of an arbitrarily defined "canon," but
whether it is true. For that, I applaud him. You should too.
And maybe take some time to listen to your own prophet, even though what he
said can't be found in your "canon."
Or is he wrong on the difference between your special sense of "canon" as a
popularity contest by which you dictate to your own god the terms by which
you will live your own religion and a "true principle," independent of
popularity? After all, TPJS isn't "canon," at least not until you vote on
it.
> The fact is that the JD was *never* presented to the Church to be
> accepted as scripture, and indeed it was never *intended* to be
> accepted as such.
> It was published *in England*, specifically so that
> English Saints could read the same information that Utah Saints had the
> chance to hear for themselves in conference. Nearly all of the copies
> of the JD in the United States were brought there by immigrating
> English Saints and returning missionaries.
Oh I see. But when you are challenged about your claim of "continuing
revelation" in your church, you point to those same conferences that
continue today as evidence.
Well, your proof is no proof if you accept one as revelation and reject the
other for no reason other than you happen to disagree with it. But wait ...
those revelations aren't "real" until they're ratified by your church
members! So much for continuing revelation.
snip
> Nevertheless, as I said above: let my statement be re-worded as, "and
> is the _Journal of Discourses_ one of the canonical scriptures mentioned
> above?
>
> "I didn't think so."
Admission of defeat by conveniently redefining your own terms when you've
been pressed into a corner. Neat trick.
> > For the sake of space, I'll snip the rest of your arrogant, unfounded
> > comments on the Journals of Discourses.
>
> Er, Upchuck? My comments were well founded.
Petty namecalling #4.
> It is, however, possible that they were arrogant. After all, arrogance
> is a subject upon which you display considerable expertise -- probably
> the only one -- and so your opinion definitely carries some weight.
Ad hominem again. Address the issue.
> See below. He was speaking the truth when his words agree with
> *revealed* truth.
Translation: "He was speaking the truth when I agree with him."
And fallacy. How do you canonize a new doctrine, when you have no standard
by which to compare it?
snip
> > it's called "Answers to Gospel Questions!"
>
> So? People wrote in asking gospel questions, and he answered them.
> There's nothing wrong with the title; it expresses the contents quite
> adequately.
Except that the answers aren't "answers" at all, but mere opinions, existing
in a grey haze until they're "made true" by the vote of the church. Oh, you
meant "answers" in the "special sense." Then he should have been more
careful. A more precise title would have been:
"My Own Personal Opinions, Which May or May Not be True, and Who Can Tell
Until They're Voted On, Anyway?" by J. F. Smith.
Not as catchy, but according to Brother Russell it's okay to play fast and
loose with the truth so long as you keep track of what special senses you
are currently using to define the term.
> Joseph Fielding Smith became the prophet in 1970. _Answers to Gospel
> Questions_ was published from 1957 to 1966.
>
> In case the significance of the dates escapes you, he wasn't the
> prophet when he wrote it.
Doesn't matter. They never canonized it anyway. So it's all suspect.
snip
> > <Yawn!> Same goes here. If J. F. didn't know "the way to
> perfection," why
> > did you listen to anything he said as your prophet?
>
> Because he wasn't the prophet when he wrote _The Way to Perfection_ in
> 1951.
>
> As I have pointed out elswhere, there are two things that do *not*
> happen when a man is called to be a prophet: all his opinions are not
> immediately sanitised, and all his prior statements are not
> retrospectively canonised.
That's convenient. But what then are you doing when you sustain him? Isn't
that canonizing him? Or are you using some special sense of the phrase
"cast an affirmative vote in conference assembled?"
> > Then why should I consider anything I read in "Mormon Doctrine" to be
> > "Mormon doctrine?"
>
> That's the whole point; you don't need to.
>
> It's a reference book, nothing more. It's not a bad one, either, and
> quite handy in one volume.
But also entirely suspect and by your definition not at in the least
authoritative. Why then, is it titled, "Mormon Doctrine?" Are you again
using some special sense of the phrase? Shouldn't he have entitled it, "My
Own Personal Fallible Opinions On What I Think Might Possibly Be Considered
Mormon Doctrine, But Remember It's Just My Personal Opinion So It's Not
Authoritative And In No Sense, Special Or Otherwise, To Be Considered
Official Mormon Doctrine?"
Or was he too playing fast and loose with alternative definitional senses?
You all seem to have difficulty with either your honesty or your precision.
I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt that it's your precision that is to
blame.
snip
> **NOT ONE** of your precious quotes came from those documents which the
> Church has accepted as revealed scripture. Not one.
>
> Will that do?
That will do fine as a bald-faced admission of your predilection for
side-stepping an argument instead of addressing it head on.
snip
> > What revelation? It was a press release! Call for reference to the
> actual
> > text of the revelation.
>
> I don't have it.
Why not?
> But what I do have is the following:
<snip uncanonized references>
Sorry, Brother Russell. But you're going to have to play this game by your
own rules. I ask for the actual text of the revelation, and you give me
uncanonized references. For shame!
I'd like the actual text, please. Don't you need that before your church
members can vote to make it "Doctrine" in the special sense of the word?
Why are your members canonizing press releases?
snip
> > And when you shout like that, you make me think I've touched a nerve.
>
> If that's what you want to think, go right ahead. But if you continue
> to disingenuously produce quotations which have been discarded, and in
> fact repudiated, by their authors, I will continue to call you on it.
He didn't repudiate it, he simply dropped it. In order to repudiate
something, you have to give a reason why it isn't true. There was no "new,
improved" doctrine that replaced the old.
> > I quoted *your* men of god, nothing more.
>
> And are beside yourself with rage that I'm not letting get away with
> pretending that their statements are doctrine.
Here and throughout this thread you seem to be in a position of castigating
your previous leaders for their wrongness on so many issues. What kind of
mormon are you?
> > If you can't take that, then you confirm my suspicion that you would
> > rather forget BY et al, and that you are sorely embarrassed by the
> whole
> > fiasco.
>
> Not at all. If you were half as good at research as you imagine
> yourself to be, you would know by now that I have one theme running
> through all my posts, namely, the poverty of religious demagoguery.
I know better than you do that ad hominems are the one consistent thread in
all of your posts. I've been the subject of them time and again.
snip
> > Ouch. Now two authoritative, binding, canonical sources contradict!
>
> No they don't. You lose, buckwheat.
Petty namecalling #5. And not even imaginative at that. "Buckwheat?"
> > You're
> > now obligated both to ban blacks and welcome them.
>
> Only in your tendentious, spiteful, and inflammatory opinion.
"Tendentious?" Look out, Brother Russell, your pompous ass is showing.
> Yes, religious hatred always frustrates me.
Only because you prefer ad hominems to addressing the issues.
> > > And how do you know that He hasn't?
> >
> > Call for evidence that he has.
>
> Nah-ah. Your *unmarked* snippage (more substandard netiquette)
...says the well-behaved netizen who has engaged in 5 episodes of
name-calling in a single post.
> contained the following rhetorical question:
>
> "but these fallible men were supposed to be led by [G]od. Why did [H]e
> not reproach them for saying such things about [H]is children?"
>
> *You* implied that you knew that He had not. Now *you* document your
> implied assertion. Or else explain that you were *not* trying to imply
> it.
Mine is the negative assertion, yours is the positive. I will hold to the
negative until you provide proof of the positive. Please take a course in
logic before your next post.
snip
> > Hmm ... "temple work" ... nope. Never heard of it.
>
> I'm not really all that surprised.
...says the genius who cannot tell what sarcasm is.
>
> > > When the Priesthood ban was ended in 1978, it was ended
> immediately, not
> > > gradually, and for all time. That meant, inter alia,
> >
> > "inter alia?" Let me rephrase that for you: "pompous posturing"
>
> Wrong! Go to the bottom of the class. I said "inter alia" because it
> uses less bandwidth than "among other things."
More of your pompous ass is showing.
> > Oh, that makes it all better. That makes up for the years when they
> > couldn't!
>
> Actually you're right: it does. If you believe that the Church is true.
Please tell me how the posthumous granting priesthood helps make anything
better except missionary efforts.
> And if you *don't* believe that the Church is true, then they weren't
> missing out on anything anyway.
You can't step outside of your own argument when it suits you but that never
stops you from trying. If you accept the statement that "non-believers
cannot expound upon belief", then why is the converse not true? Why can you
expound on my beliefs? Please try at least to be consistent with yourself.
> So what this *whole argument* boils down to is this: if the Church is
> true, then the black members who lived through the time when they
> couldn't hold the priesthood have now received all of those blessings,
> and so the Priesthood ban no longer matters.
>
> And if the Church isn't true, then nothing of value was really withheld
> after all, so the Priesthood ban *never* mattered.
Your own words disqualify you from telling me what matters to non-believers.
Stick to expounding on beliefs, or start back-pedalling again. I'd like to
hear you define a "special sense" of your original, "qualified-absolute"
claim.
> You can take your pick.
I have to choose neither, since you won't allow me to comment on the first,
and you disqualify yourself from expounding the second.
snip
> > > Actually there's no doctrine on the subject at all, coherent or
> > > otherwise.
> >
> > Right. I wish someone would enlighten us on this important subject.
>
> As I have clearly shown above, it is no longer important.
"As I have clearly shown" again? Stop trying to embarrass the reader into
accepting your conclusions. Stay away from words such as "obviously" and
"clearly," and then try to actually make an argument instead of trying to
strong-arm the reader.
You might find that arguments work, if you ever tried them.
snip
> > The passages I cited contradict each other. Maybe you can choose for
> me
> > which of the contradictory responses are correct. Oh! I forgot! It
> was
> > Brigham Young's, because his can be found in a "standard work" of the
> > church.
>
> Sorry, no prizes for equivocating.
...says the master equivocator, who is adept at stopping at challenging
posts, shrinking from sight, and then returning only to redefine "special
senses" of terms he introduced in the first place.
Speak to the argument. How do you choose between contradictions?
snip
> And you didn't know how Latter-day Saints use a common phrase like
> "Standard Works" in a particular and narrow sense, so your whole
> argument has been uninformed from the beginning.
In your uninformed and entirely hostile opinion. Don't chastise me when you
introduce a term, fail to clarify it, get embarrassed when shown you're
wrong, disappear to regroup, and re-emerge with brand new meanings and
"special senses" and the claim that this, of course, is what you meant all
along.
snip
> And I shall be happy to enlighten you, if and when your mind is open on
> the subject.
Why else do you think I am taking the time to reply? Enlighten away.
> > B) I suppose Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, J. F. Smith, and the
> pre-1978
> > Bruce R. McConkie were being hostile to current mormonry, because all
> I did
> > was repeat their words.
>
> Sorry, I'm not falling for that ruse, either. They were telling us
> what they knew, believed and thought then. They *weren't* deliberately
> distorting and withholding evidence in order to manufacture an
> accusation.
Show me where I've distorted evidence. Look up the quotes, and then tell me
where I distorted or misquoted the words. If you can't, then another of
your baseless, unsupported claims falls on deaf ears.
I offered citations for each and every quotation, so any thoughtful reader
may go back and determine for themselves if what I quoted them as saying
represented the actual thrust behind their speeches. Anyone may read the
lectures themselves and verify the context. So your claim of "witholding
evidence" again falls short.
snip
> > Obsolete teaching? Only because current sensibilities are offended.
>
> GONG!!
>
> It became obsolete in June, 1978, when the First Presidency and the
> Twelve received revelation on the subject -- revelation which rendered
> all the prior speculation,
> by members in high positions and low,
> entirely obsolete.
Except that god himself has remained entirely silent on the subject. Or
have you found the actual text of that 1978 "revelation" yet? If not, then
the "doctrine" you "canonized" in 1978 is nothing more than a press release,
a statement by fallible men, which just happened to be popular enough to be
voted into the sacred "canon."
I'm still waiting for the actual words of your god on the subject. Brigham
Young didn't seem to have any difficulty obtaining them. Joseph Smith
received an entire book full of revelations. Why is it that your current
prophets either
a) don't actually receive the word of god, and just say they do (a "special
sense," perhaps?)
or
b) receive the word of the lord, but decide to keep it to themselves, unlike
Joseph Smith who had the fortitude to publish the revelations he claimed to
have received to the entire world?
Why simply type up a press release, when there was so much "speculation" on
the matter? Why not clear up the issue once and for all?
After all, in 1978, apparently the world was ready to receive this
"revelation." Why publish anything else but the word of the lord on the
matter?
snip
> > Wait, I thought you said these things weren't getting any harder to
> find ...
>
> They're not. But they do *not* impact the lives of *any* Church
> members, and there is *nothing you can do about it*.
More asterisks, in an apparent attempt to distract from the fact that you
contradicted yourself within your last post.
> > > The desperate attempts to make something of it before it is
> completely out
> > > of reach
> >
> > "Completely out of reach" means completely forgotten.
>
> No, it means that you can no longer use it as a club to beat the Church
> with.
>
> There's a difference.
Face it, Brother Russell. The reason this issue hasn't gone away is that
there isn't any answer on it. Not a drop of "official doctrine," by which
members may edify themselves by feasting upon the word of the lord.
If no one is willing to come up with an explanation, this issue is never
going away. What better time to find the words of the actual revelation
that was received in 1978?
snip
> Engaging your fallacies -- equivocation, straw man, presentism -- *is*
> answering the argument.
>
> It answers the *whole* argument.
By failing to answer each separate argument individually, your answer fails.
You engage in equivocations on "special" vs "ordinary" senses of the terms
you brought up in the first place, ad hominems, petty namecalling,
presentism in your "I'm oh-so-ready to dismiss previous leaders on the basis
of a 'canonized,' non-revelation press-release!" garbage, and you think
you've addressed the issues?
Go back to remedial logic. That post wasn't worth the wait.
Chuck
> "Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
> (Brigham Young)
And yet you continue to advance your own. Or was Brigham wrong on this too?
C&C
> Wow:) You guys rock too, but I thank you for the compliment! I just
> hope that something good comes out of our time spent in here, and that
> some people will get the information they need.
Thanks, Vince. That was my wife, Camilyn, who paid you the compliment, but
I share the sentiment.
As far as "something good" for time spent, I hope so too. Although I've
almost lost hope in reasoning with some folks around here ...
Chuck
jbl
roles, President Gordon B. Hickley said, when asked by Larry King, that he does
not see why a black person could not become the president of the church someday.
Jeffrey B.
Michael Jordan wrote:
> Again, straighten it out for me if I've got it wrong. This Curse of Cain, as
> far as the Mormons were concerned,was an indelible mark and black could not
> be admitted into the priesthood... until 1978.
>
> So logically the curse was upon every black baby born prior to 1978? My
> cursed mother gave birth to cursed children? And we all went to church and
> got the gospel of Jesus Christ from our ministers who themselves were cursed
> and couldn't have been priests in your Church anyway? I was baptised by a
> black minister long before 1978. To the Mormons, was such a baptism
> legitimate? Or were we just deluded Negroes playing with water?
>
> Because based on what I read so far none of you speak with a single-voice
> clarity on this subject. Vince says this, Russell says that, Fawn is
> outraged... on and on...
>
> I can't imagine what comfort any black person would get from joining a
> church where seemingly everyone can't talk about it, won't talk it, and
> contradicts each other. And now I hear Brigham Young's own books are hidden
> or hard to find..
>
> I would love to meet these blacks. I wonder if it occurred to them that even
> if the Mormons never bestowed membership or preisthood upon blacks it
> wouldn't have made a bit of difference to us. We would have still had a rich
> spiritual life without the Mormons. *Jesus* saved us, not the Mormons.
>
> But since you did invite us, why couldn't we have a leadership role in this
> church we of which were members?
>
> Well about that Civil Rights Movement you congratulate us for: I shudder to
> think where Civil Rights would be if Martin Luther King Jr. became a Mormon
> and therefore wouldn't have had a pulpit to speak from. He died before
> 1978.in case the point eludes you.
gary0
> [[snip]]
> When the Priesthood ban was ended in 1978, it was ended immediately,
> Church members could, as soon as they received their own temple
> ordinances, immediately do all of the work for all of their deceased
> ancestors. As a result, all the black members of the Church who died
> prior to 1978 have now received, poshumously, all of the blessings
> that were withheld from them while they were alive.
> [[snip]]
> Russell C. McGregor
I'm pretty sure that proxy work for blacks was done all along, not just
since OD2. The rationale, as I understand it, was that proxy work only
takes effect when one is resurrected, and at that point -- even under
the old rules -- blacks would be eligible to hold the Priesthood and
partake of Temple ordinances.
Any genealogy/temple types out there have the definitive word? Were
names submitted for temple work prior to OD2 checked to make sure that
they didn't come from the "lineage of Cain/Ham?"
Gary0
gary0
[[ Remainder edited and re-ordered for clarity ]]
In <hNYx4.183$gi1....@news.uswest.net>, "C&C" wrote:
>
> "Only the standard works are binding ..." So how do they
> become standard works?
Glad you asked! Scriptures become doctrine when the Church accepts
them as such. The historical record of the acceptance of the Doctrine
and Covenants by the Church illustrates how this is done:
> ============================BEGIN LONG QUOTE
> History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
> Saints, Volume 2, Chapter 18, pp. 243-246:
>
> The Book of Doctrine and Covenants Presented To the
> General Assembly of the Priesthood and the Church.
>
> A general assembly of the Church of Latter-day Saints was
> held at Kirtland on the 17th of August, 1835, to take
> into consideration the labors of a committee appointed by
> a general assembly of the Church on the 24th of
> September, 1834, for the purpose of arranging the items
> of the doctrine of Jesus Christ for the government of the
> Church....
>
> President Cowdery arose and introduced the "Book of
> Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter-day
> Saints," in behalf of the committee....
>
> [T]he High Council of Kirtland accepted ... them ... by a
> unanimous vote....
>
> [The High Council of Missouri] accepted ... them ... by a
> unanimous vote....
>
> President W. W. Phelps then read the written testimony of
> the Twelve....
>
> [T]he council of the Seventy accepted ... it ... by a
> unanimous vote....
>
> Bishop Newel K. Whitney ... with his counselors accepted
> ... it ... by a unanimous vote....
>
> Acting Bishop John Corrill ... with his counselors
> accepted ... it ... by a unanimous vote....
>
> [T]he Elder[s] accepted ... it ... by a unanimous vote....
>
> [T]he Priests accepted ... it ... by a unanimous vote....
>
> [T]he Teachers ... accepted ... it ... by a unanimous vote....
>
> [T]he Deacons ... accepted ... it ... by a unanimous vote....
>
> [T]he whole congregation, accepted ... it ... by a unanimous vote.
>
>The several authorities and the general assembly, by a
> unanimous vote, accepted the labor of the committee.
> =====
> The History of the Church is fully readable and
> searchable online at www.gospelibrary.com.
> ============================END LONG QUOTE
> Where is the revelation from god that says, "Please
> consider the Bible, BOM, D&C, and POGP the only
> authoritative sources from which I grant my knowledge"?
There's *lots* of authoritative knowledge from God that's not in the
Canon. Fallible though we all are, the Spirit will identify a lot of
it to everyone who asks in faith. Conference talks, manuals, and
Church magazines, for example, contain a lot of this.
Only *canonized* stuff is binding on Church members, but there is
profit in accepting truth *wherever* it is found. Outside the Canon,
though, it can be mixed with philosophies and opinions of men. It's
important to prove all things with Canon and Spirit.
> In the absence of any such revelation, the answer is that
> the people choose the "Standard Works."
Indeed they do. A revelation is only binding on the Church if the
Church accepts it. If it's not accepted, it's still true, but one can
become and remain a member of the Church without believing it. (If one
accepts such a revelation, without the Church mandating that
acceptance, so much the better.)
On the other hand, fallible men may add something that isn't true to
the Canon. Section 101 of the first edition of the Doctrine and
Covenants condemned polygamy, even though plural marriage was being
secretly practiced at the time. This erroneous section has long since
been deleted; but, for a time, polygamous Church members were in
violation of canonized doctrine.
> So what? People are fallible. But for the sake of
> argument, let's allow that only the "Standard Works"
> count. Here is a quote that might interest you:
>
> "The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the
> standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint
> will certainly welcome with joy every number as it comes
> forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the
> light that shines from Zion's hill.'"
> George Q. Cannon, Preface to JD 8
Fallacy of equivocation (changing definitions in the middle of a
discussion). The term "Standard Works," today, refers to the Canon.
In earlier times, it was understood in a more general way; the meaning
of the term has changed. See other posts in this thread for more
detail.
> I suppose you are in a better position than George Q.
> Cannon to determine what is and is not to be considered
> the "Standard Works." They were certainly considered "standard
works" in their time.
Yes, each of us *is* in a better position. The Canon isn't static, and
what we accept today isn't what GQC would have come up with.
> Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > [I]s Wilford Woodruff's journal one of the standard
> > works mentioned above?...
> >
> > [I]s J. F. Smith's _Answers to Gospel Questions_?...
> > [I]s J. F. Smith's _The Way to Perfection_?...
> > [I]s Bruce R. McConkie's _Mormon Doctrine_?...
> >
> > I didn't think so.
> >
> > [Your quotes did not come] from those documents which the Church
> > has accepted as revealed scripture.... Thus [none] of them ...
> > are in any way binding upon the Latter-day Saints.
I have to "switch hats" here for a minute, because I consider the above
technically true but misleading.
Statements from Church leaders, although not Canon, are widely accepted
by Church members -- as they *should* be. They are, however,
provisional until added to the Canon.
But if someone goes out of his way to proclaim that the Brethren are in
error, most members don't take it kindly -- and the leadership
*certainly* doesn't.
Today's General Authorities are aware of how members hang on their
every word, and they try to keep opinions out of their talks and
writings. That wasn't always so, as a lot of stuff quoted on this
newsgroup richly illustrates.
> ... Apparently [Wilford Woodruff] was only "speaking the
> truth" when you agree with him.
No, but Church membership only commits one to follow what has been
canonized. The Spirit will guide one (imperfectly, to be sure) to much
that is of great worth in his writings.
> ... If ["Answers to Gospel Questions"] is unauthoritative, tell me
> why I should trust your current prophet when he answers the gospel
> questions you have today...?
It's not unauthoritative; it's just uncanonized. Lots of good stuff,
mixed with the inevitable opinion. As always, it is to be verified
with canonized Scripture and the Spirit's still, small voice.
> ... If [J. F. Smith] didn't know "The Way to Perfection,"
> why did you listen to anything he said as your prophet?
Same as above. You'll certainly be on the way to perfection if you let
Spirit and Scripture guide you as you study his writings.
> ... [W]hy should I consider anything I read in "Mormon Doctrine" to
> be "Mormon doctrine?" McConkie should have spared himself the time
> and embarrassment, because apparently people are only listening to
> the "standard works."
You *shouldn't* consider it "Mormon Doctrine," unless the Canon
supports it. Unfortunately, many members don't bother to apply this
test, and they accept our leaders' writings and pronouncements far too
uncritically. Brigham Young repeatedly warned against blind acceptance
of whatever the leadership says, but the aura of competence and
authority that comes with a leadership position makes it easy to
disregard his warnings.
> > [[Russell refers to the revelation on blacks receiving the
> > Priesthood]]
>
> What revelation? It was a press release! Call for
> reference to the actual text of the revelation.
> Cheers.
> Chuck
Good point! So far as I know, this is the *only* case of canonized
Scripture that hasn't been revealed. Only the *existence* of the
revelation has been announced.
As I've remarked on another thread, this practice may finally allow
canonization of the Temple Ceremony. It could be presented to the
Church by reference only, as was the revelation behind OD2.
The Temple Ceremony, as important as it is, isn't doctrine, because its
sacredness has prevented open publication in the Standard Works. Now,
there's a precedent that open publication isn't required.
E. Mark Ping
In general Chuck, you should read a post before responding to it.
Russell's comments were:
"No, they *practiced* the Priesthood ban, which was *policy*. The bits
about "curse of Cain" and "not valid in the pre-existence" were
developed to *explain* the practice; they were not the basis for it.
And the mere fact that many or most Latter-day Saints may have believed
one or both of those explanations does not make either or both of them
doctrine."
I see nothing in Tom's post about either the Curse of Cain, or
anything about the pre-existence. So you really should be complaining
that Tom is posting irrelevant scripture passages, not slamming
Russell.
--
| "If hard data were the filtering criterion
Mark Ping | you could fit the entire contents of the
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU | Internet on a floppy disk."
| - Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope Tells All
Tom Taylor
>From: ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping)
>Date: 3/11/00 1:02 AM !!!First Boot!!!
>Message-id: <8ac5vd$lc3$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>
Nothing about the curse of Cain? What do you think "cursed as to the
priesthood" because he was a descendant of Ham means? Are as dishonest as ewe
boy?
Tom
cdo...@my-deja.com
"C&C" <camn...@uswestnospam.net> wrote:
> <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me ask you a question. You equate "curse" with "not receiving
the
> > priesthood."
> >
the
> > world "cursed"? Were the Jews, the Benjaminites, all the rest of
Israel
> > equally cursed? Was the entire population of the earth cursed
except
> > for the few thousand Levites who received the priesthood?
>
> This seems to me to be an honest reply from someone who has sincerely
> struggled with the issue, instead of a "brother McGregor" knee-jerk
> counter-attack, as it puts the issue into a broader perspective.
Cdowis,
> you appear to have given the issue a great deal of thought.
For the past 25 years, very serious thought.
The basic logic is as follows:
If the LDS church does not have the priesthood, it is a moot issue, IMO,
since we have nothing to withhold.
If the church does have the priesthood, then the Lord has the discretion
and authority to control its use. The whole question of "Why" goes back
to why the Lord puts limits on the priesthood, going back to the
Levites. If anyone can answer my question on the Levites, then we have
the answer on why God controls the priesthood the way that He does.
We can speculate, we can opine, but the bottom line is that we simply do
not know. While some may not be satisfied with that answer, it is the
only one that I can offer, and I have not seen any other answer.
>
> Mjordan, I would encourage you to continue your conversation with
cdowis,
> and I apologize for butting in. But I will lurk with interest ...
>
> Chuck
>
>
--
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
cdo...@my-deja.com
"Vincent H." <vince...@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip
>
> > Let me ask you a question. You equate "curse" with "not receiving
the
> > priesthood."
>
> Well, for 100+ years church leaders spoke of the Blacks and the Curse
of
> Caine in the same sentences. For 100+ years, Blacks were denied the
> priesthood. I don't think it is really that difficult of a concept to
> equate.
Really? Why were the Lamanites "cursed" (in the BOM), but they were
able to receive the priesthood?
Adam was "cursed" as well, but he also received the priesthood. We are
subject to the curse of Adam, but I also hold the priesthood.
All of us mortals are cursed in one degree or another. But you use it
as a schempfwort -- an accusation, a clever phrase to spin a doctrine
out of its context. The bottom line is that God expects us to do the
best we can here in mortality, regardless of our circumstances and
opportunities, and EACH of us can come back into His presence. We have
a greater responsibility for that which God deems to grant
us.
We are all cursed, in one way or another.
>
> > When God gave the priesthood *only* to the Levites was the rest of
the
> > world "cursed"? Were the Jews, the Benjaminites, all the rest of
Israel
> > equally cursed? Was the entire population of the earth cursed
except
> > for the few thousand Levites who received the priesthood?
>
> Would it be similar logic to ask if, prior to 1978 was everyone on the
> planet who wasn't LDS cursed or denied the priesthood?
We are all cursed, including the LDS, to one degree or another.
I realize you have an agenda, so I suspect that you have difficulty
comprehending that concept. We are all cursed,
No, of course
> not, anyone could join and if found "worthy could receive the
> priesthood. But wait, no.. there was a group.
But, wait. Not everyone could join the church. The Chinese government
forbids teaching the gospel there. Remore jungles of South America
precluded missionaries from going there for centuries.
The apostacy precluded anyone from receiving the priesthood for almost
two millenia.
We are all cursed, to one degree or another.
African Americans. They
> could join, they could be worthy, yet they would be denied the
> priesthood.
Uh, in the Old Testament, the Israelites were forbidden to mingle with
the Gentiles. No one but the Levites could hold the priesthood.
Why do you ignore my question?????? Why are you terrified by its
implication that you completely continue on with your diatribe and do
not respond to my question?
Why?
It is innapropriate to use this logic when in this case it
> was a single group kept out, and not a bunch of them like it was back
> then.
Uh, the ENTIRE world was refused to be given the priesthood, INCLUDING
the Israelites ------------>>>>>>>>>> EVERYONE, including the chosen
people.
WHY?????
Why??
Why do you refuse to answer my question?
According to Brigham God basically said anyone can have the
> priesthood... as long as you are not black.
EVERYONE was refused the priesthood except the Levites.
Why?
Are you going to answer my question, or continue to ignore it.
>
> I wasn't around back during the days of the Levites, and I could not
> presume to know how people felt about receiving or being denied the
> priesthood.
Your feelings, or their feelings were irrevelant. It was God who said
only the Levites. There was no election, no popularity poll. This was
a revelation from God.
Why did God do it?
snip
Get back to me when you respond to my question. Your diatribe tires me.
E. Mark Ping
Tom Taylor <ttayl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Nothing about the curse of Cain? What do you think "cursed as to the
>priesthood" because he was a descendant of Ham means? Are as
>dishonest as ewe boy?
How about reading the preceding verse? I'll put them both in for
clarity:
ABR 1:26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and
judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to
imitate that order established by the fathers in the first
generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the
reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the
blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed
him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
ABR 1:27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have
the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim
it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their
idolatry;
Looks like "cursed as to the priesthood" becuase he was a desendant of
Ham was due to the fact that Noah cursed Ham "as pertaining to the
Priesthood." I see no reference to Cain here.
Vincent H.
hope that something good comes out of our time spent in here, and that
some people will get the information they need.
Vincent H.
Vincent H.
Vincent H.
yes or no question if he says yes, he's pc and everyone is happy. If
had replied no on national TV, he would have had a hundred different
organizations making an international stink about it by the next day.
He had no choice but to answer yes, but in my heart I am sure he really
does not feel that way.
My two cents,
Vincent H.
C&C
snip
> Cdowis,
> > you appear to have given the issue a great deal of thought.
>
> For the past 25 years, very serious thought.
>
> The basic logic is as follows:
>
> If the LDS church does not have the priesthood, it is a moot issue, IMO,
> since we have nothing to withhold.
>
> If the church does have the priesthood, then the Lord has the discretion
> and authority to control its use. The whole question of "Why" goes back
> to why the Lord puts limits on the priesthood, going back to the
> Levites. If anyone can answer my question on the Levites, then we have
> the answer on why God controls the priesthood the way that He does.
>
> We can speculate, we can opine, but the bottom line is that we simply do
> not know. While some may not be satisfied with that answer, it is the
> only one that I can offer, and I have not seen any other answer.
Charles,
Brother McGregor gave me this same argument, but I was able to reject it
coming from him because he told me that non-believers couldn't expound on
belief, and I postulated to him that the reverse of that statement, then,
must also be true, at least for him.
You do not give me any similar grounds to reject your reasoning based on
your own "rules," so I must take your reasoning at face value for what it
is: an honest attempt by an honest person to grapple with a difficult issue.
I appreciate you sharing your insights.
Chuck
C&C
Thank you. I was wondering when and where that originated.
> > Where is the revelation from god that says, "Please
> > consider the Bible, BOM, D&C, and POGP the only
> > authoritative sources from which I grant my knowledge"?
>
> There's *lots* of authoritative knowledge from God that's not in the
> Canon. Fallible though we all are, the Spirit will identify a lot of
> it to everyone who asks in faith. Conference talks, manuals, and
> Church magazines, for example, contain a lot of this.
>
> Only *canonized* stuff is binding on Church members, but there is
> profit in accepting truth *wherever* it is found. Outside the Canon,
> though, it can be mixed with philosophies and opinions of men. It's
> important to prove all things with Canon and Spirit.
Here I would interject that "canon" is superfluous, because in order to
personally accept something as "canon" to begin with, one has to "prove it
by the Spirit" to one's own satisfaction.
> > In the absence of any such revelation, the answer is that
> > the people choose the "Standard Works."
>
> Indeed they do. A revelation is only binding on the Church if the
> Church accepts it. If it's not accepted, it's still true, but one can
> become and remain a member of the Church without believing it. (If one
> accepts such a revelation, without the Church mandating that
> acceptance, so much the better.)
What if, in that revelation, God reveals a principle that he requires the
Saints to live by in order to gain exaltation? If the saints reject that,
but it is nevertheless true, is their refusal to accept a commandment
binding upon God? In other words, given this example, could a church member
still be exalted because this requirement didn't make it into the binding
canon, though was nevertheless true?
Can the church members actually dictate to God what requirements they will
accept as binding to obtain a salvation or exaltation?
This seems backwards to me.
> On the other hand, fallible men may add something that isn't true to
> the Canon. Section 101 of the first edition of the Doctrine and
> Covenants condemned polygamy, even though plural marriage was being
> secretly practiced at the time. This erroneous section has long since
> been deleted; but, for a time, polygamous Church members were in
> violation of canonized doctrine.
So simply being in the canon doesn't automatically make it true, just
binding on the saints. Then why bother canonizing? I thought it was to
obtain a special "truth-status."
> > So what? People are fallible. But for the sake of
> > argument, let's allow that only the "Standard Works"
> > count. Here is a quote that might interest you:
> >
> > "The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the
> > standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint
> > will certainly welcome with joy every number as it comes
> > forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the
> > light that shines from Zion's hill.'"
> > George Q. Cannon, Preface to JD 8
>
> Fallacy of equivocation (changing definitions in the middle of a
> discussion). The term "Standard Works," today, refers to the Canon.
> In earlier times, it was understood in a more general way; the meaning
> of the term has changed. See other posts in this thread for more
> detail.
Easy with the fallacies. Brother McGregor introduced the term. If he was
using a "special definition" he should have clarified that from the
beginning. And how are you able to tell me what George Q. Cannon meant by
"standard works?"
> > I suppose you are in a better position than George Q.
> > Cannon to determine what is and is not to be considered
> > the "Standard Works." They were certainly considered "standard
> works" in their time.
>
> Yes, each of us *is* in a better position. The Canon isn't static, and
> what we accept today isn't what GQC would have come up with.
I'm not sure there was such a thing as "Canon" for Cannon. Did they ever
discuss it? When did the word start appearing in LDS literature?
> > Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > [I]s Wilford Woodruff's journal one of the standard
> > > works mentioned above?...
> > >
> > > [I]s J. F. Smith's _Answers to Gospel Questions_?...
> > > [I]s J. F. Smith's _The Way to Perfection_?...
> > > [I]s Bruce R. McConkie's _Mormon Doctrine_?...
> > >
> > > I didn't think so.
> > >
> > > [Your quotes did not come] from those documents which the Church
> > > has accepted as revealed scripture.... Thus [none] of them ...
> > > are in any way binding upon the Latter-day Saints.
>
> I have to "switch hats" here for a minute, because I consider the above
> technically true but misleading.
>
> Statements from Church leaders, although not Canon, are widely accepted
> by Church members -- as they *should* be. They are, however,
> provisional until added to the Canon.
>
> But if someone goes out of his way to proclaim that the Brethren are in
> error, most members don't take it kindly -- and the leadership
> *certainly* doesn't.
>
> Today's General Authorities are aware of how members hang on their
> every word, and they try to keep opinions out of their talks and
> writings. That wasn't always so, as a lot of stuff quoted on this
> newsgroup richly illustrates.
Brigham Young was pretty concerned about how his and others' preachings
would be taken after they were gone. He demanded that Orson Pratt publicly
acknowledge that his work "The Seer" not be viewed as "official doctrine" of
the Church, but simply as his own work. I haven't been able to find any
qualms that he expressed re: JofD.
> > ... Apparently [Wilford Woodruff] was only "speaking the
> > truth" when you agree with him.
>
> No, but Church membership only commits one to follow what has been
> canonized. The Spirit will guide one (imperfectly, to be sure) to much
> that is of great worth in his writings.
Fair enough.
> > ... If ["Answers to Gospel Questions"] is unauthoritative, tell me
> > why I should trust your current prophet when he answers the gospel
> > questions you have today...?
>
> It's not unauthoritative; it's just uncanonized. Lots of good stuff,
> mixed with the inevitable opinion. As always, it is to be verified
> with canonized Scripture and the Spirit's still, small voice.
Ah, the answer I was looking for. Eloquently expressed.
> > ... If [J. F. Smith] didn't know "The Way to Perfection,"
> > why did you listen to anything he said as your prophet?
>
> Same as above. You'll certainly be on the way to perfection if you let
> Spirit and Scripture guide you as you study his writings.
Same as above. I applaud your consistency.
> > ... [W]hy should I consider anything I read in "Mormon Doctrine" to
> > be "Mormon doctrine?" McConkie should have spared himself the time
> > and embarrassment, because apparently people are only listening to
> > the "standard works."
>
> You *shouldn't* consider it "Mormon Doctrine," unless the Canon
> supports it. Unfortunately, many members don't bother to apply this
> test, and they accept our leaders' writings and pronouncements far too
> uncritically. Brigham Young repeatedly warned against blind acceptance
> of whatever the leadership says, but the aura of competence and
> authority that comes with a leadership position makes it easy to
> disregard his warnings.
Well done.
> > > [[Russell refers to the revelation on blacks receiving the
> > > Priesthood]]
> >
> > What revelation? It was a press release! Call for
> > reference to the actual text of the revelation.
> > Cheers.
> > Chuck
>
> Good point! So far as I know, this is the *only* case of canonized
> Scripture that hasn't been revealed. Only the *existence* of the
> revelation has been announced.
Actually the "First Official Declaration" was also a press release. I have
yet to see the actual text of the revelation abolishing polygamy.
> As I've remarked on another thread, this practice may finally allow
> canonization of the Temple Ceremony. It could be presented to the
> Church by reference only, as was the revelation behind OD2.
I'm curious as to why you would want to canonize that. What would be
gained?
In terms of the 1978 Declaration, the reason is clear: to place a document
in the official "canon," neatly superceding all previous statements on this
issue without, at the same time, providing the actual rationale for the ban
in the first place, or the reason why it was removed in 1978 rather than
1878 or 2078.
That's the problem with canonizing press releases. Give us the revelation
so that we may examine the actual words themselves. I'm not sure how you
would go about praying over a press release to find out whether or not it
was "true."
> The Temple Ceremony, as important as it is, isn't doctrine, because its
> sacredness has prevented open publication in the Standard Works. Now,
> there's a precedent that open publication isn't required.
Gary, thanks for taking the time to reply in a non-derogatory fashion. You
seem eloquent, thoughtful, and for the most part consistent within the
framework of the definitions you've chosen.
Chuck
Michael Jordan
Vincent H. <vince...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38C7CBF2...@earthlink.net...
> Michael, here are some links to pages that discuss this issue. Some of
> this might be pretty offensive, but at least you will know what the
> story is. > http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/africanamerican.htm
> http://utlm.org/topicalindexa.htm#Blacks
> http://www.exmormon.org/blacks1.htm
> http://www.california.com/~rpcman/racism.htm
> http://www.teleport.com/~packham/byoung.htm#NEGRO Brigham Young's
> Doctrines on the Black race
> Michael Jordan wrote:
George Williams
>
>Uh, Raleigh, please point me to the post in which I said mormons aren't
>Christians. My point is, if you are claiming to be a Christian, then act
>like one.
>
>
I don't claim to be a Christian. After living with my ex for 18 years, and
having her tell me it was unChristian of me to object to her smoking crack and
sleeping with her lover in our house in broad daylight with the kids at home,
I don't respond to the "unChristian attitude" ploy any more.
Michael Jordan
> Whew. Is that enough? Notice I'm not trying to be anti-mormon here, but
am
> using church-approved books and speeches by their own prophets and
apostles.
> I think you can see why they'd rather dismiss Brigham Young and why they
no
> longer actively study these portions of his talks. Note also that the
entry
> in "Mormon Doctrine" has now changed to reflect the "new" Mormon doctrine.
> The above quote was taken from 1966.
At his moment Russell might expect me to go "ah, HA! This PROVES Mormons are
racist!"
Of course it doesn't.. There are racist Mormons just like there are racist
Catholics and so on, There are Mormons who are open and accepting of other
races. So be it.
It might only show that Brigham Young was a product of his time. But if you
(faithful, devout Mormons) are going to revere this man take in the WHOLE
width and depth of what was. If this is what he was, if this is what he
thought of blacks, just SAY so. We can take it from there.
>
> So it is a bit of an embarrassment to mormons, and your concern is
founded.
> They will try to tell you that these were only the opinions of fallible
men,
> but these fallible men were supposed to be led by god. Why did he not
> reproach them for saying such things about his children? Was there never
a
> curse? If not, exactly what changed in 1978? Were the black spirits who
> were born after 1978 somehow more worthy than their 1800 counterparts? If
> not, why can they now enjoy something which was denied their ancestors?
If
> so, exactly how did they become more worthy?
>
> The problem is that there is no coherent doctrine on the subject. No one
> can give you a definitive answer for why the ban was instituted in the
first
> place. The church simply decided in 1978 to sweep this embarrassing mess
> under the carpet without providing a rationale for either a) its existence
> in the first place or b) why it was removed when it was.
>
> Chuck
>
And this is at the heart of my discomfort with the Church of LDS.
Obviously, some Mormons are quite embarrassed. My objection comes not from
Brigham Young's discourse but from the avoidance of the issue altogether.
Here's an analogy::
1. The police arrest you and are detained and you don't know why. One
policeman says"we're looking into it", Another says "Don't know why. It's
nothing personal just doing my job".
2. After DAYS of being locked away, someone just say "you're free to go"
You: "why was I locked away?"
Jailer: "I don't know."
You: "Well who does know?"
:Jailer: "Not sure. Wanna go to lunch?"
You: "If you don't know WHY I was locked up, can you tell me why I am NOT
locked up now?"
Jailer: "Because I was told to let you out. Want some Jello?"
You: I don't think so
Jailer: Well that's rude. You're free to go now and you're not even
grateful. If it were me, I'd just be glad."
You: Why? You ever been locked up without explanation?
Jailer: Not everything can be explained. And in a way, aren't we all locked
up now and then?"
FAWNSCRIBE
Fawn, there is nothing for me to accept. The RLDS and LD-S had long since
split from the defunct LDS Church at Nauvoo when the problem with the doctrine
about blacks came into the LD-S Church. I need accept nothing.>>
BOM and was the foundation of the faith others followed was of God and if his
foundation was true that others built upon.
One cannot sepearte the doctrine of the foundation from the follwers later who
embrace it
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
If the LDS church does not have the priesthood, it is a moot issue, IMO,
since we have nothing to withhold.
If the church does have the priesthood, then the Lord has the discretion
and authority to control its use. The whole question of "Why" goes back
to why the Lord puts limits on the priesthood, going back to the
Levites. If anyone can answer my question on the Levites, then we have
the answer on why God controls the priesthood the way that He does.
>>>>>>>>
You are no Levite sir and the priesthood you espouse that doesn't follow the
purpose of the priesthood to begin with ( and doesn't even use the precise
rituals) is in no position to wonder wbout whether you have it.
You don't.
You have appropriated names..but no ritual, no same purpose and thereby have no
authority
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Really? Why were the Lamanites "cursed" (in the BOM), but they were
able to receive the priesthood?
Adam was "cursed" as well, but he also received the priesthood. We are
subject to the curse of Adam, but I also hold the priesthood.
>>
Giv it up..first off there is no establishment there WERE LAMANITES and after
the fall of Adam he held no priestly office.
Amazingly if you see the duties of the priesthood and the lineage and suthority
God gave themn all you will see clearly that you are no part of that lineage
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Ironically, more men than women join the church in Africa. As for leadership
roles, President Gordon B. Hickley said, when asked by Larry King, that he does
not see why a black person could not become the president of the church
someday.
Jeffrey B.
>>
There will be more chance that a firefly can flit in January In Alaska that it
may happen in this lifetime.
Look, Hinckley can't see why 22 years after he not only could see why but
APPROVED of why the blacks were witheld the office.
Christ however taught 2000 years ago all men working righteousness were not
under curse but acceptable to Him.
If the leadership had been more worried about CHRIST and less about Brigham and
others they'd have seen that too
Fawn
cdo...@my-deja.com
Paul tells us in Hebrews that the priesthood was changed. Can you tell
us precisely the nature of that change, since you appear so
knowledgeable on the subject.
cdo...@my-deja.com
ttayl...@aol.com (Tom Taylor) wrote:
> In article <8a9lln$hdp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Russell McGregor
> <russe...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >
> >> the whole association of brethren
> >> practiced it because it was a idea that came from your leadership..
> >
> >No, they *practiced* the Priesthood ban, which was *policy*. The
bits
> >about "curse of Cain" and "not valid in the pre-existence" were
> >developed to *explain* the practice; they were not the basis for it.
> >And the mere fact that many or most Latter-day Saints may have
believed
> >one or both of those explanations does not make either or both of
them
> >doctrine.
> >
>
> Is the Pearl of Great Price no longer one of the "Standard Works?"
>
> 25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh,
> the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the
> manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
>
> 26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and
> judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly
> to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first
generations,
> in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam,
and
> also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the
earth,
> and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the
> Priesthood.
OK, and we all carry a curse in one regard or another. This particular
curse has to do with the priesthood, but we are all cursed in other,
numerous ways. We will all die, we are mortal and subject to disease,
decay, etc etc. The curse of Adam falls upon us all.
The "curse" of the priesthood is just one of many. We all have it and
must live with it. but that need not stop us from coming back to the
presence of the Father -- we ALL have the opportunity to be exalted,
regardless of what curse/s we bear. And that is the bottom line.
And those who say "Pity me, poor me, because I am CURSED" are missing
the boat.
>
> 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have
> the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim
> it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by
> their idolatry;
>
> Tom
>
--
mrsg...@webtv.net
From: russe...@my-deja.com (Russell McGregor)
"It is universally understood and unanimously accepted by everybody not
committed to religious polemics that *only* a believer is in any
position to expound a belief, because only a believer can determine what
is primary or secondary in his or her belief system."
******** In your dreams, Russell. You are a perfect example of a
believer who, though you may be in a perfect position to understand your
belief system, instead feverishly defend, deny, mislead and obfuscate
church teachings in the mistaken belief that the lord needs you to lie
for him, but in actuality it's your personal embarrassment that you wish
to cover up by lying. You, as the true believer, have the greatest
motivation to save face by falsely presenting church history and
doctrine as you wish it were rather than what it is and was.
If you really believed your statement in quotes above (undocumented,
BTW), you would have to be a Moslem, Moonie, Scientologist, etc.,
because you would have to believe those believers when they tell you
theirs is the only true way. Sorry, part of being a "true believer"
means that some of the synapses of your brain are misfiring and your
belief is worthless as proof to any other person of what your religion
or your god is about.
And your argument that only what is found in the canonized scriptures
represent church "doctrine" is bullroar too. When the church stops
quoting dead prophets, live prophets, journals, Journal of Discourses,
whatever faith-promoting nonsense they
can glean from those sources while disregarding the rest, then you can
restrict critics to the scriptures. Meantime, you may as well admit that
those old quotes that Vincent put out here shaped church opinion,
policy, teachings, doctrine, whatever you want to call it, more than the
actual scripures ever have.
Mrs. Garcia
"This year invest in truth, and let it work in peace."
mrsg...@webtv.net
From: vince...@earthlink.net (Vincent H.)
Lol, carefull about baiting Russell McGregor... :) I pretty much
categorically disagree with everything Russell says, but I know how he
gets when he is challenged. That man can argue anything for pretty much
as long as you have the energy, so you better store up on carbohydrates
and get ready for a long thread that feels like its going
nnnnnnooooooooowwheerrrrrrrrrrreeeeeee :)
********* You got that right, Vincent. Russell has worn me out quite a
few times. I just hope he understands that when I give up on a "going
noooowwwhhhheeerrrreee" thread it's just because I've lost interest in
his loquacious repetitions, and not conceding my position.
Vincent H.
isn't worth the mental anguish to carry on a discussion that turns into
a non-discussion.
Take care,
Vincent H.
C&C
> Hi Mrs. Garcia :) I agree with you 100 percent. Sometimes it just
> isn't worth the mental anguish to carry on a discussion that turns into
> a non-discussion.
I agree wholeheartedly. My head still hurts from all that banging on the
wall when I try to reason with him. I am on the verge of departing the
one-sided conversation so that he may resume it with himself.
Chuck
C&C
Chuck
<mrsg...@webtv.net> wrote:
<begin quote>
Mrs. Garcia
"This year invest in truth, and let it work in peace."
<endquote>
Woody Brison
I think that there is a side of this that is being
overlooked. As I see it, there are some people who are
reading anti mormon literature, and it is raising questions
in their minds. True, the anti mormons have an agenda and a
willingness to slant things, but it goes a little too far
to lump the bystanders in with them. They have minds, so if
they have questions they might well be real questions
deserving of good answers.
The Priesthood restriction which was lifted in 1978 was not
about skin color. It was about lineage. When LDS missionaries
went to Fiji, the people had skin color darker than much of
Africa, but those people were given the priesthood. It's not
a matter of color. It's a matter of family tree. From '78
until now, has been the first time in all the history of the
world when the Priesthood of God has been available to all
lineages.
It had nothing to do with revenge on Cain. He was punished
for his own sins, his children suffered some of that, but
his 1000th descendendents are not punished for it, they
have their own lives and little or nothing to do with their
ancestor.
According to the best that I have been able to understand,
the Lord designated one family in the earth where He could
send people to be born, where they could experience mortal
life but not have the responsibility of the priesthood. And
eventually, when He decided the time was right, he opened
up that curtain.
But the Lord has never revealed exactly why he restricted
the priesthood in that fashion. He has, as Russell pointed
out, put other restrictions on it at various times. But I
think it's always been a matter of family tree.
Altho I know this is stupid, I will disclose a dream I had.
There will be some who will pound on me for being so stupid
as to suppose that they could understand this. But maybe
someone will benefit, so here goes.
I saw in my dream, a man in the pre-mortal life who was having
trouble learning certain principles. The Lord and his
servants worked very hard with this man, they did their
best, but having free agency, he was ultimately the one who
decided to not learn the principle involved. I didn't
really understand exactly what the principle was, perhaps
the dream was given to me and my mind changed some of the
symbols, but what I saw was that he had some problem about
something to do with movement, or travel. At any rate, he
had this problem learning it, and at some point, it was
time for him to be born, but he wasn't ready on that one
point -- absolutely refused to learn it. But the Lord had a
solution. He had the man be born anyway. And as a result
the man was born with legs that never worked. He went
around in this life in a wheelchair. As a result of
experiencing the principle directly, or the lack thereof, I
believe, the man did learn the principle and eventually got
the use of his legs, after this life I guess. The dream I
believe illustrates the reason why some people -- and let
me emphasize: I mean some not all -- are born with whatever
deficiencies, limitations, and so forth. There are many
different kinds, it is not a simple matter, but the
essential principle is that in this life we can
*experience* the stuff for ourself, it's no longer
theoretical. Thru experience we come to know ourselves
whether God is right or not.
The notion that the early Mormons were simply racists is
ignorant and does not account for the generous and
sympathetic spirit they generally exhibit towards all
people.
I was not raised in an LDS home, and my parents had some
racist attitudes to some extent, so naturally I inherit
some of their attitudes. This makes it a little difficult
for me to discuss this whole question, but perhaps another
small story about myself would help others to understand.
When I went to Mexico on my mission, I never really liked
little kids. I was always afraid they would be afraid of
me, and duh, they generally were. One day we were locked
out of our house, and my companion grabbed this little boy
and put him in the little high window. I remember the
anxiety I felt thinking the kid would probably go thru our
stuff and take money, etc. but I had to realize the kid was
in the window and opening the door within five seconds. And
nothing was missing. It appeared obvious to me that I was
in the grip of some irrational fear about children. This
caused me to start watching them. There sure were a lot of
them. Our house was next to a park, and a lot of the
working parents would simply turn their kids out into the
park to take care of themselves while they went to work.
How I sensed the need of these kids for love! If I sat down
to talk with them, they would swarm me. Climb all over me,
cling to my legs when I went to walk away, it was hard
being around them. I realized that the Gospel of Jesus
Christ coming into the lives of their parents was the best
thing that could alleviate their sufferings, so I would
pull myself away from them in order to get to work
proselyting. How I came to love those little brown skinned
children, with their wide, happy faces. When I got back to
the States I was shocked to see the anemic little white kids,
their skin is actually transparent, you can see the blood
vessels and everything inside them.
I am not really that atypical of a Mormon: a convert, with
some false principles in my head at first, but as I live
the Gospel, the Holy Spirit teaches me the right ways. I
suppose that a lot of the early Mormons were the same way.
At first, there were NO Mormons born into the faith. They
were all converts, and they had to have had their share of
false principles. But the teachings of the prophets haven't
been false. The Holy Ghost is not a racist, of that I
testify.
Now, let's see. Did I address what Chuck (C&C) had written?
> So it is a bit of an embarrassment to mormons, and your
> concern is founded. They will try to tell you that these
> were only the opinions of fallible men, but these fallible
> men were supposed to be led by god. Why did he not reproach
> them for saying such things about his children? Was there
> never a curse? If not, exactly what changed in 1978? Were
> the black spirits who were born after 1978 somehow more
> worthy than their 1800 counterparts?
Here I believe is a truth. Given that God is planning to
lift the ban, then it makes sense that he would send people
to the African race who would be prepared to represent
their ancestors in the priesthood and in the Temples. These
people might well be brighter, quicker, and more faithful
than their ancestors, who knows? It is a well known
teaching of the LDS that God has reserved many of his
brightest and most valiant children to come to the earth in
these last days before his 2nd coming, so why would the
same not be true among the Africans?
>... The church simply decided in 1978 to sweep this
> embarrassing mess under the carpet without providing a
> rationale for either a) its existence in the first place or
> b) why it was removed when it was.
As I said, the Lord never revealed his rationale to the
world generally, but that would not prevent any given
individual from inquiring of Him why it was so.
The Church did not decide, the Lord decided. When you
understand a little better how the LDS Church works, that
will become apparent to you. It never was a mess. Some
were embarrassed about it, mistakenly so.
For the last, no, that's not true. President Kimball told
us that the ban was removed because the long-promised day
for it to be removed had come. (see OD-2 in the Doctrine
and Covenants). It means that the second coming is getting
closer, much closer.
Wood
Russell McGregor
>
> "It is universally understood and unanimously accepted by everybody
not
> committed to religious polemics that *only* a believer is in any
> position to expound a belief, because only a believer can determine
what
> is primary or secondary in his or her belief system."
>
> ******** In your dreams, Russell. You are a perfect example of a
> believer who, though you may be in a perfect position to understand
your
> belief system, instead feverishly defend, deny, mislead and obfuscate
> church teachings in the mistaken belief that the lord needs you to lie
> for him, but in actuality it's your personal embarrassment that you
wish
> to cover up by lying. You, as the true believer, have the greatest
> motivation to save face by falsely presenting church history and
> doctrine as you wish it were rather than what it is and was.
Hello Mrs. G. Have you re-emerged from wherever you've been just to
accuse me of lying?
I put it to you, madam, that you have no evidence at all with which to
back up this gratuitous and false accusation. Indeed, I can only
conclude that you are expressing your own resentment, and projecting
your own shortcomings onto me.
Yet again.
Snip to end
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
C&C
snip
> In general Chuck, you should read a post before responding to it.
> Russell's comments were:
In general, E Mark, you should read my post before you respond to it.
I wasn't commenting on Russell's semantic word-games or Tom's verses. I was
commenting solely and specifically on Tom's statement, "Apparently ewe boy
has never read the Book of Abraham. Is the Pearl of Great Price no longer
one of the 'Standard Works?'"
My point remains: when you keep redefining the "Standard Works," you lose
meaning to the term. The "Standard Works" of Cannon's time are obviously
not the same "Standard Works" of today, so who knows if the Book of Abraham
will be considered in a future version of the "Standard Works?"
Chuck
Bill Williams
news:118-38C...@storefull-148.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Group: alt.religion.mormon Date: Fri, Mar 10, 2000, 2:41am (AKST+9)
>>"It is universally understood and unanimously accepted by everybody not
committed to religious polemics that *only* a believer is in any
position to expound a belief, because only a believer can determine what
is primary or secondary in his or her belief system."
>******** In your dreams, Russell. You are a perfect example of a
believer who, though you may be in a perfect position to understand your
belief system, instead feverishly defend, deny, mislead and obfuscate
church teachings in the mistaken belief that the lord needs you to lie
for him, but in actuality it's your personal embarrassment that you wish
to cover up by lying. You, as the true believer, have the greatest
motivation to save face by falsely presenting church history and
doctrine as you wish it were rather than what it is and was.
>If you really believed your statement in quotes above (undocumented,
BTW), you would have to be a Moslem, Moonie, Scientologist, etc.,
because you would have to believe those believers when they tell you
theirs is the only true way. Sorry, part of being a "true believer"
means that some of the synapses of your brain are misfiring and your
belief is worthless as proof to any other person of what your religion
or your god is about.
>And your argument that only what is found in the canonized scriptures
represent church "doctrine" is bullroar too. When the church stops
quoting dead prophets, live prophets, journals, Journal of Discourses,
whatever faith-promoting nonsense they
can glean from those sources while disregarding the rest, then you can
restrict critics to the scriptures. Meantime, you may as well admit that
those old quotes that Vincent put out here shaped church opinion,
policy, teachings, doctrine, whatever you want to call it, more than the
actual scripures ever have.
Good point. The most troubling thing about this issue is the INCONSISTENCY
of the way in which the church uses quotes from prior leaders. In the
manuals used by the church on the teachings of Brigham Young and Joseph F.
Smith, parts of those teachings are included, IF they are consistent with
current church teaching. But teachings that are inconsistent with current
church positions are not covered. It seems to me that if the church is not
going to use the statements of these prior leaders, they should be more
honest, or else not use them at all.
Bill Williams
FAWNSCRIBE
From: cdo...@my-deja.com
Date: 3/11/2000 9:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <8advvh$hl3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The priesthood was transferred to the gentiles.
God promised that if israel KEPT the covenant with Him they would become a
kingdom of priests forever and ever.( Exodus 19:6)
The priesthood of Aarons line was to continue until the coming of the GREATER
priesthood that it was a foreshadow of ( Hebrews 8: 4, 5 ( Even Christ wouldnt
have been a priest beacuse of that Jewish system) skip on down to verse 6
where we can see he however was a minister in heaven.....
The old priesthood endured until the inaguration of the NEW Covenant ( Hebrews
7:11-14, 8: 6,7 and 13)
The offer was made EXCLUSIVELY to Israel at first..the offer THEN ( after it
was rejected) was extended to the Gentiles. Acts 10:34, 35 Acts 15:14
Romans 10:21
you howveer are trying to jump the gun with some stuff Smith added as ritual,
appropriate a few names of the Levitical line..add this take out that and have
some mish mash no way RESEMBLING what was outlined.
There is also in Revelation mention of the kings and priests singing a NEW song
which was bought in Christs blood Rev 5:9,10
Do we know all duties God will have for them?
No..but can discuss this more if you would like..HOWEVER we certainly shouldn't
be second guessing by coevring what we think are all bases down HERE for what
duties will be done THERE in HIS arangement.
Relax..be glad if you GET there at all..LOL
fawn
C&C
> Lol, Ive lost track of what it was you guys were arguing about. Seems
> nothing but personal at this point:)
Vince:
a) You're right. He's degenerated to merely calling me names, like
"Upchuck," which at least makes some sort of sense, and for some strange
reason, "Buckwheat," which does not.
b) I've lost track too.
So, at this point, I suppose it would be prudent on my part to simply stop
the nonsense and quit wasting bandwidth.
Chuck
C&C
> That's the whole point of Russell's strategy. Engage in an endless war of
> verbal attrition of minute details and ad hominem attacks in order to
avoid
> the real issues.
Nail on the head, Bill. That's what I spent most of my last post trying to
tell him. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it.
Chuck
mrsg...@webtv.net
From: russe...@my-deja.com (Russell McGregor)
Hello Mrs. G. Have you re-emerged from wherever you've been just to
accuse me of lying?
********* Wherever I've been? Gee, I just went to work out at the gym,
then I had a nice dinner with the hubby, and then ... ummm, oh, yeah,
shopping for a gift for my niece. And I never thought about you once the
whole time!
Russell said:
I put it to you, madam, that you have no evidence at all with which to
back up this gratuitous and false accusation. Indeed, I can only
conclude that you are expressing your own resentment, and projecting
your own shortcomings onto me.
Yet again.
******** Oh, but I know you better than you know yourself! By the way,
did you have documentation for that quote? Or did it come from your own
mendacious mentality?
Russell McGregor
"C&C" <camn...@uswestnospam.net> wrote:
> Wow! Two identical replies to my single post. If you post it twice,
does
> that mean that you make twice as much sense? Apparently not ...
It happens sometimes. Get over it.
> Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Snip
> > > Well allow me to retort. Brigham Young's explanations came from
the
> > > Journals of Discourses, which were considered "standard works" in
> > their
> > > time.
> >
> > Not in the same special sense that the scriptures are and were.
>
> Admission of defeat by sidestepping the argument.
Not even slightly.
You have done one of two things: either you have *not* understood a
crucial term in the LDS religious vocabulary, or you have deliberately
and knowingly equivocated. In either case, your argument is
fallacious. The Journal of Discourses has *never* formed part of THE
Standard Works; only the Scriptures qualify as that.
> You lose credibility when
> you redefine your own terms in "special senses" after you've been
shown that
> you are wrong.
Two points:
(1) I didn't "redefine" anything *at all* I merely *clarified* what you
tell me you failed to understand. For well-informed Latter-day Saints,
my original statement remains quite good enough.
(2) You certainly have *not* shown me that I was wrong in any detail.
Don't delude yourself, Upchuck.
> If you continue to do this, then I can't accept any of your
> current definitions. How do I know that you won't just change them
again
> later?
I haven't changed anything yet, so your question is moot.
> But I suppose that's symptomatic of exactly the kind of thinking that
leads
> to the problem in the first place. "We're embarrassed by Brother
Brigham,
> so let's sanitize him!" This is exactly what your leaders did when
they
> published a Brigham Young "primer" that included no references to
plural
> marriage at all. "Presentism" at its finest.
That's a standard accusation. It's also false.
> <snip stupidity>
> > > Or are you as embarrassed at your ignorance concerning your own
> > religion as
> > > you are at the doctrine your religion practiced for so long a
time?
> >
> > One of us has just been rather comprehensively embarrassed, yes.
>
> Finally you admit being thoroughly embarrassed on your lack of
knowledge.
> It took you long enough.
Er, Upchuck? I'm not the one who was embarrassed. Guess again. ;-)
> > > Maybe someone just told you the Journals weren't considered
"standard
> > > works," and you swallowed that without ever cracking them open to
> > > independently verify the claim.
> >
> > Wrong, Upchuck. I made it my business to know the difference
between
> > the common phrase "standard works" and the special LDS sense of
"*The*
> > Standard Works," a difference that has obviously escaped you.
>
> Oh right, that amazing reply by which you neatly redefined what you
really
> meant in the first place, and then asked me to substitute "canon" for
> "standard works."
I was being kind to you, Upchuck. You should have taken advantage of
it while it was there.
> Semantics and word games are the last refuges of someone
> desperately seeking an argument.
Yadda yadda yadda.
>
> <snip>
> > > Maybe. We'll never know, though, if you don't reply to my post.
You
> > seem
> > > to be rescinding your argument with your silence.
> >
> > A silence that lasted -- what, eight hours?
> >
> > This is a newsgroup, not a chat room. There's no time limit on
> > responses. I've had posts responded to a week or more later.
> >
> > I notice that your silence in response to my reply has lasted even
> > longer. Does this mean that you are "rescinding your argument with
> > your silence?"
>
> I work during the day. Where are you that you can reply so often
during
> these times?
In a completely different time zone from you, if you must know.
And may I point out that if you expect me to accept your explanation,
you must first do me the courtesy of accepting mine.
> Does your boss know?
I think he knows what time zone we both live in, yes.
Snip to end.
Vincent H.
>
> I think that there is a side of this that is being
> overlooked. As I see it, there are some people who are
> reading anti mormon literature, and it is raising questions
> in their minds. True, the anti mormons have an agenda and a
> willingness to slant things, but it goes a little too far
> to lump the bystanders in with them. They have minds, so if
> they have questions they might well be real questions
> deserving of good answers.
By using the label "anti", you really unfairly lump all kinds of people
because they disagree. We who do not agree with the church come from
all kinds of backgrounds, all kinds of educations, may have never been
members and may have been members for 30 years. To lump evryone in this
label is unfair but very convenient.
> The Priesthood restriction which was lifted in 1978 was not
> about skin color. It was about lineage. When LDS missionaries
> went to Fiji, the people had skin color darker than much of
> Africa, but those people were given the priesthood.
Do you know about the problems which occured in Brazil?
> It's not
> a matter of color. It's a matter of family tree. From '78
> until now, has been the first time in all the history of the
> world when the Priesthood of God has been available to all
> lineages.
Thats all and good if you are a member of the church and you believe
what you have been told. Unfortunately however there is no proof of any
of this and the men who first brought this "knowledge" to light are
known for making lots of mistakes, failed prophesies, and teaching
things which turned out to be totally false, a.k.a. opinions in these
days.
> It had nothing to do with revenge on Cain. He was punished
> for his own sins, his children suffered some of that, but
> his 1000th descendendents are not punished for it, they
> have their own lives and little or nothing to do with their
> ancestor.
According to Brigham Young this is not true at all. Read about what it
will take the curse to be lifted:
You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un-
comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly
deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is
generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious
crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any
one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been
killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human
beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is
the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and
then another curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they should
be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is
removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter
that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is
upon them? That curse will remain upon them, [p.291] and they never can
hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of
Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the
Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of
Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children
of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were
the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the
curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up
and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the
seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion. JoD
7:290-291 (October 9, 1859)
> According to the best that I have been able to understand,
This is an all too sad remark I hear in here and at church meetings.
Why is it that the members have to try and figure out what is going on.
Why can't the only true church on the planet lay it out in black and
white and stick to their story no matter what the consequences.
> the Lord designated one family in the earth where He could
> send people to be born, where they could experience mortal
> life but not have the responsibility of the priesthood. And
> eventually, when He decided the time was right, he opened
> up that curtain.
Again this explanation only has any merit if one believes the stories of
men who were known for making lots of mistakes, failed prophesies, and
teaching things which turned out to be totally false, a.k.a. opinions in
these days.
> But the Lord has never revealed exactly why he restricted
> the priesthood in that fashion. He has, as Russell pointed
> out, put other restrictions on it at various times. But I
> think it's always been a matter of family tree.
Again this explanation only has any merit if one believes the stories of
men who were known for making lots of mistakes, failed prophesies, and
teaching things which turned out to be totally false, a.k.a. opinions in
these days.
> Altho I know this is stupid, I will disclose a dream I had.
> There will be some who will pound on me for being so stupid
> as to suppose that they could understand this. But maybe
> someone will benefit, so here goes.
Snip dream
> The notion that the early Mormons were simply racists is
> ignorant and does not account for the generous and
> sympathetic spirit they generally exhibit towards all
> people.
Why is it so hard to believe Mormonsas a theology are racist? Look at
the year when these comments on race were spoken by Joseph and Brigham.
They no more had any wisdom regarding race, than anyone back then..
Blacks were third class citizens and slavery was a common practice. Is
it really so hard to believe it is a coincidence that Joseph and Brigham
picked them to be the "cursed" people? Lets not forget Brigham also
seemed interested in bringing slavery to Utah:
It is not the prerogative of the President of the United States to
meddle with this matter, and Congress is not allowed, according to the
[p.40] Constitution, to legislate upon it. If Utah was admitted into the
Union as a sovereign State, and we chose to introduce slavery here, it
is not their business to meddle with it; and even if we treated our
slaves in an oppressive manner, it is still none of their business and
they ought not to meddle with it. - JoD 4:39-40 (Aug 31, 1856)
snip
> As I said, the Lord never revealed his rationale to the
> world generally, but that would not prevent any given
> individual from inquiring of Him why it was so.
> The Church did not decide, the Lord decided. When you
> understand a little better how the LDS Church works, that
> will become apparent to you. It never was a mess. Some
> were embarrassed about it, mistakenly so.
Again this explanation only has any merit if one believes the stories of
men who were known for making lots of mistakes, failed prophesies, and
teaching things which turned out to be totally false, a.k.a. opinions in
these days.
> For the last, no, that's not true. President Kimball told
> us that the ban was removed because the long-promised day
> for it to be removed had come. (see OD-2 in the Doctrine
> and Covenants). It means that the second coming is getting
> closer, much closer.
Around the same period that the "ban" was lifted, wasn't there a few
things going on that were race related which were focused on the
church? Wasn't there quite a bit of pressure then from various
organizations? Wasn't there a basketball team who very publily
boycotted a game with BYU because of the race issues? Is any of this
familiar?
Is any of this really that hard to figure out, if one wants to see what
REALLY happened?
Vincent H.
> Wood
Vincent H.
nothing but personal at this point:)
Vincent H,