Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug
Solon wanted an alternative theory, so I tried one. I don't know what the truth is, [. . . ]
EDIT: To Solon's credit, he didn't bait me by asking for an alternative theory and then pounce on me like everyone else has.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
We're not really going down this road again are we? I guess given the quotes, it was inevitable.
|
Thanks, Indy. I really was sincere. I've realized that nobody is going to change positions on this issue. As Tex alluded, this is well worked ground here on CG and most people have staked their claim and formed their ideas. Fair enough. I just honestly wanted to know how else someone could explain it other than through a racial lens.
Assuming that god exists, is interested in human affairs, etc. etc., I think that, just as we can't know all the ramifications, implications, and reasons for the priesthood ban and how it figured into the great and complete divine plan, so we can't really know what god is like, his nature, character, etc. (despite what JS said in
Lecture on Faith III). We feel free to accept Jesus' merciful god, but are unwilling to recognize the vengeful, jealous, bloodthirsty god of the OT. We are content to cherry-pick stories and aphorisms that back up our preconceived notions of what a "father" god is like. I don't buy it, and think there's more to the story. We may know some . . . . we may know a lot . . . . but I doubt anyone knows the whole story.
I personally don't know very many answers, knowing only that I don't know (like Arch's signature line). Agnosticism is unsettling and unsatisfying, that's for sure.
At any rate, my issue isn't with the doctrine
per se - churches of all kinds believe all sorts of stuff, some good, some bad, some crazy. My issue is with the current LDS leadership's unwillingness to own or refute this doctrine in a public, unambiguous way. But that's another topic.