We haven't really discussed the ban....

[MikeWaters]

this is why some find it frustrating that the current prophets and apostles say nothing on the subject.

good thing that we have message boards so people can actually talk about it.

has anyone ever attended a church meeting in which this subject was tackled in a substantive way?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

We, as members of the Church, don't have to have an answer for everything. We don't have to have perfect understanding of everything. Faith has to play some role, but members have a hard time with that. So, they press their leaders with incessants "Why?" I'm sure than in many instances the leaders may not have an answer either. I believe that may have been the situation with some of the statements early leaders made, they were trying, with the best they had, to provide an explanation.

Of course we don't need answers for everything, but if the church is lead by Jesus, why the inconsistency? The Lord isn't a lord of confusion, he is a Lord of absolution and love. Dispensational changes are understandable but as you put it, doctrinal changes where the power of God is distributed drastically different over a 125 year span? Seems weird the Lord would change his mind so drastically so quickly.

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

Did the Church do some things that appear racist? It did. Does that mean that it was racism that 'inspired' the policy/doctrine of the ban? It doesn't. We're some of the leaders racist? Probably. However, this is the Lord's Church, and He uses imperfect mortals to serve in it. A loving, merciful Lord, wouldn't allow his prophet, to completely remove the opportunity to be full participating members of the Church unless it were his will. I don't understand this and some day, I'll get to ask why, but until then, declaring that the prophets are racist and that's what brought about the policy is absurd.

So in your opinion, it wasn't the prophets saying racist things, it was the Lord saying them through his people? Please explain the mental gymnastics you had to do to reconcile the current comments by our prophet. (This is a dangerous line of thinking, imo)

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

I'm not sure, at least I'm getting the strong impression here, that many downplay the necessity of a living prophet. We know from the past, what happens when there isn't a prophet. It's not up to us to pick and choose which doctrines we like/don't like or will obey/not obey, ours is to follow. The 12 are a great example. I know they don't agree about everything, but when President Hinckley tells them how something is going to be, they all fall in line and follow his lead, whether or not it was what they thought was the correct course of action.

So what about the differences in doctrine, since everything from a prophet to you is doctrine? Which prophet do I follow? Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Brigham Young, all said polygamy was never to leave the earth, and that the saints were to be practicing polygamists or they could not gain exaltation, am I screwed because the current prophet now says that we are well beyond and past polygamy? Why is Jesus changing his mind so much? Why the confusion?

I uphold and follow the prophet, I think he gives us directives that are extremely valuable and we need to, in part, follow those to maintain certain relationships with our Heavenly Father and Savior.....BUT.....if everything the prophet says is doctrine and the will of the Lord, you are setting up the church to be a highly changing, fallible, and inconsistent organization. Absolutely different than the canon presented and accepted as the will of the Lord.

In fact, I don't know how somebody can maintain faithful in the church if he doesn't take many quotes of the prophets as mistakes of men. The church to me, rings highly untrue, if everything said by prophets was doctrine, or the will of the Lord as you so matter of factly put it.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Of course we don't need answers for everything, but if the church is lead by Jesus, why the inconsistency? The Lord isn't a lord of confusion, he is a Lord of absolution and love. Dispensational changes are understandable but as you put it, doctrinal changes where the power of God is distributed drastically different over a 125 year span? Seems weird the Lord would change his mind so drastically so quickly.

It would appear to me that you feel like you need an answer for anything you don't understand.

Originally Posted by fusnik11

So in your opinion, it wasn't the prophets saying racist things, it was the Lord saying them through his people? Please explain the mental gymnastics you had to do to reconcile the current comments by our prophet. (This is a dangerous line of thinking, imo)

Questioning what the Lord said in D & C is a dangerous line of thinking...

Originally Posted by fusnik11

So what about the differences in doctrine, since everything from a prophet to you is doctrine? Which prophet do I follow? Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Brigham Young, all said polygamy was never to leave the earth, and that the saints were to be practicing polygamists or they could not gain exaltation, am I screwed because the current prophet now says that we are well beyond and past polygamy? Why is Jesus changing his mind so much? Why the confusion?

You follow the living prophet, period, end of discussion. Why the change? I don't know, but when I do I'll let you know, until then, say a prayer and ask why.

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I uphold and follow the prophet, I think he gives us directives that are extremely valuable and we need to, in part, follow those to maintain certain relationships with our Heavenly Father and Savior.....BUT.....if everything the prophet says is doctrine and the will of the Lord, you are setting up the church to be a highly changing, fallible, and inconsistent organization. Absolutely different than the canon presented and accepted as the will of the Lord.

When the world stops changing, perhaps the Church will become more static

Originally Posted by fusnik11

... or the will of the Lord as you so matter of factly put it.

Go and read D & C, section 1.

[ute4ever]

Have you ever seen a ward get a new bishop, or a mission get a new president, and he changes the way a few things are done? Those are mere policy changes, based upon the wisdom of an individual. Nothing doctrinal.

I can only assume that the men who succeeded Joseph Smith thought his associations with blacks and the priesthood were not doctrinal, but mere personal preferences that they did not agree with.

However, I was not there. I did not witness their conversations. Maybe Joseph told Brigham et al that he was uncetain if what he was doing was right, and thought it safe to error on the side of inclusion. Maybe the Lord was silent in the matter. Although he was prophet of the dispensation, I doubt the Lord held his hand in all things. In fact, Joseph's documented frustration with the length of time he spent in prison under a silent Lord shows that often he was left to his own devices.

And because I was not there, I cannot say who was speaking under direction of the Lord and who was not; or what was done under conscience of Joseph's upbringing or how Brigham was raised to view the same.

[JohnnyLingo]

And because I was not there, I cannot say who was speaking under direction of the Lord and who was not; or what was done under conscience of Joseph's upbringing or how Brigham was raised to view the same.

Nail on the head.

It's so interesting how people like fusnik seek to twist the past of the church to fit their current PC views. Fussy, if you're still in the church ten years from now, I will be very surprised.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

When the world stops changing, perhaps the Church will become more static

So the will of the Lord is contingent on a changing world?

Interesting, your line of thinking....

Last question.....

Do you believe that the moon was inhabited by men who dressed like quakers?

Do you believe that no man will ever walk on the moon?

Do you believe dinosaurs essentially didn't exist?

All things prophets have said, ie, in your words, the will of the Lord, ie, the Lord said those things, not men.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Nail on the head.

It's so interesting how people like fusnik seek to twist the past of the church to fit their current PC views. Fussy, if you're still in the church ten years from now, I will be very surprised.

Twist the past of the church? Wowzers....

Facts:

a. Joseph gave blacks the priesthood
b. The church called blacks to missions
c. Joseph was anti-slavery
d. Joseph allowed a black man to be a close confidant and lauded his person
e. Brigham said blacks were the seed of Cain
f. Harold B. Lee said blacks would never hold the priesthood
g. Joseph Fielding Smith said blacks were less faithful in the pre-earth life

So tell me the mental gymastics you are doing to fit that all into the will of the Lord?

Amazing how in 1840 the Lord was loving his black man but in 1950 the Lord was worried about black people giving blood in Utah because the cursed blood would be entering into the annointed of the Lord.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

So the will of the Lord is contingent on a changing world?

Interesting, your line of thinking....

Last question.....

Do you believe that the moon was inhabited by men who dressed like quakers?

Do you believe that no man will ever walk on the moon?

Do you believe dinosaurs essentially didn't exist?

All things prophets have said, ie, in your words, the will of the Lord, ie, the Lord said those things, not men.

Procedural things and policies can change with changing situations in the world. The Lord's will may be different at different times. I won't leave my baby home alone, that's my policy, but in 15 years I will. My ultimate goal and desire continue to be the same thing.

I would encourage you to read your scriptures, pray, and gain a testimony. And here's a fusism for you, "You just don't agree because you don't know as much as me."

[ute4ever]

It's so interesting how people like the ninja so frequently add contention and personal attacks when discussing religious matters, or discussing just about anything. Who is the source of contention? Who is the ninja trying to emulate? Who does the ninja honor with his behavior? Does the ninja spend three hours a week physically present in a church building, so his wife and the community will see he is a good person; while his words and actions during the other 165 hours of the week reflect his true character? Ninja, if you're still in the church ten years from now, I will be very surprised.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

Procedural things and policies can change with changing situations in the world. The Lord's will may be different at different times. I won't leave my baby home alone, that's my policy, but in 15 years I will. My ultimate goal and desire continue to be the same thing.

I would encourage you to read your scriptures, pray, and gain a testimony. And here's a fusism for you, "You just don't agree because you don't know as much as me."

I assume your silence to my questions means that you do believe there are moon men that dress like quakers.