30th anniversary of priesthood announcement celebrated on Temple Square

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The evidence that the prophets prior to SWK made a serious effort to reverse the ban is very weak.

Prior to the DOM book, it appears we had nothing at all. Now we have at least a few accounts of the effort, and who knows but that there are more.

We're all talking out of our butts here anyway, so I don't understand why we can't entertain the idea. You pretend it's a foregone conclusion that they didn't when there is at least some evidence they did.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

well, because for one, maybe they weren't nearly as prayerful as they thought.

HBL saying it will never be rescinded while he was alive doesn't sound very prayerful.

Just for clarity: it was a friend of a daughter of Lee who said he said that.

---

Once again this discussion devolves into how much interaction God has with his prophets. Those on my side of the discussion think he is very interested and very involved; those on the other think he isn't.

Yawn.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I have a satisfyin explanation. Uncle Tom dodging is not particularly satisfying.

It sounds to be like the so-called "Uncle Tom" has a personal witness of this and doesn't feel the need to have a logical / rational explanation. He is taking it on faith.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Prior to the DOM book, it appears we had nothing at all. Now we have at least a few accounts of the effort, and who knows but that there are more.

We're all talking out of our butts here anyway, so I don't understand why we can't entertain the idea. You pretend it's a foregone conclusion that they didn't when there is at least some evidence they did.

Like I said, the evidence is very weak. Thanks for proving my point.

Originally Posted by Tex

Just for clarity: it was a friend of a daughter of Lee who said he said that.

Similarly, the accounts of DOM "pleading with the lord" are second or third hand.

Originally Posted by Tex

Once again this discussion devolves into how much interaction God has with his prophets. Those on my side of the discussion think he is very interested and very involved; those on the other think he isn't.

Way to draw the line for us there, Tex. The purity of your doctrine is an awesome thing to behold.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

It sounds to be like the so-called "Uncle Tom" has a personal witness of this and doesn't feel the need to have a logical / rational explanation. He is taking it on faith.

He had a chance to actually say something that would inform members as to the history of this thing, and he chose not to address it.

Being a stake president, invited by the church to a party, I can see why he would dodge. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Not all members are satisfied with "it's a mystery, theres nothing to be said", and he really doesn't do anything for those members.

Unfortunate.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

He had a chance to actually say something that would inform members as to the history of this thing, and he chose not to address it.

Being a stake president, invited by the church to a party, I can see why he would dodge. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Not all members are satisfied with "it's a mystery, theres nothing to be said", and he really doesn't do anything for those members.

Unfortunate.

Article title: "LDS Black Leaders Call for Spirit of Unity"

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

He had a chance to actually say something that would inform members as to the history of this thing, and he chose not to address it.

Being a stake president, invited by the church to a party, I can see why he would dodge. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Not all members are satisfied with "it's a mystery, theres nothing to be said", and he really doesn't do anything for those members.

Unfortunate.

silly a bunch of white people claiming to speak for him.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Are you even reading Indy's posts?



It's almost as though the concept of priesthood authority has been lost on this group.

Are you even reading mine? Thanks for that contribution.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Like I said, the evidence is very weak. Thanks for proving my point.

I wasn't disputing your point. I was disputing the implication that it doesn't matter (which is the point of pointing out how weak it is, no?).

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Similarly, the accounts of DOM "pleading with the lord" are second or third hand.

Indeed. Yet to read here, you'd think Lee made the "not in my lifetime" comment in General Conference.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Way to draw the line for us there, Tex. The purity of your doctrine is an awesome thing to behold.

It's a fair boiling down to what this discussion always becomes.

And the vacuousness of your terse responses is equally awesome. If I wanted a pissing contest, Leb, I'd just chat with Cali. Try a little substance on for size.

[SeattleUte]

Been too busy to read this thread. Can somebody please shoot me the LDS Church's 30th anniversary statement statement of regret and apology and belief statement retroactively repudiating the ban ab initio? Thanks in advace. That would be an interesting and heart warming thing to see.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So you're constraining God from being able to be everywhere at once?

I would think the doctrine of a corporeal God does that unless there is something I missed.