30th anniversary of priesthood announcement celebrated on Temple Square

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

None of the above were under the auspices of his prophet. God's not intervening in atrocities is not even remotely the same as failing to provide proper guidance and a word of warning when people go significantly astray.

Is porn more important than racism? The Word of Wisdom? Keeping a journal? Food storage?

You have no examples after the NT times, so God has ceased intervening to correct error. IOW, I don't buy for one moment God ceasing to intervene as evidence of acceptance. That conclusion is folly.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Your examples are from Old Testament times. The God of the New Testament is predominantly a noninterventionist. I note approvingly that the person the church appointed to act as spokesperson for the 30th anniversary of the priesthood ban said that denial of the priesthood to blacks was based on folklore, not doctrine.

Regardless of the origins, what steps did God take to correct it? Why the sudden laissez-faire? It's completely incompatible with God of the Old Testmant and of the Restoration.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You have no examples after the NT times, so God has ceased intervening.

God has ceased intervening? Based on what? Because you say so? That's pure nonsense.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

God has ceased intervening? Based on what? Because you say so? That's pure nonsense.

Why? Because you say so? That's pure nonsense.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why? Because you say so? That's pure nonsense.

I have documented evidence on my side.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

God permitted the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, Idi Amin, and many other atrocities.

God's non-intervention is not a standard of acceptance.

You can't be seriously arguing this, are you? Really?

Originally Posted by Archaea

You have no examples after the NT times, so God has ceased intervening to correct error.

Wrong. I have the entire Restoration.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Yet, when we've seen people are far enough off track, God will send Abinadi, Samuel the Lamanite and many others into harms' way to set everyone straight when they had significantly strayed off of the correct path.

The simple fact is that either

1. Multiple prophets failed to heed God's displeasure with this doctrine/policy/practice
2. God didn't think it was important enough to get the saints back on track
3. God allowed it for purposes unknown to us

Does God get more upset with Noah's immorality and corruption of the church than racism?

Does he get more upset with people casting out the prophets and stoning them than he does with prophets that perpetuate a racist policy?

We have clear examples of a God who refuses to a God of inaction when it comes to matters of correcting his people which have gone astray. So why the inaction in this specific instance if it was clearly wrong and clearly against His will?

I respect your POV, Indy, but I disagree with how you are framing this.

What I am suggesting, and what is consistent, I think, with Elder Roberts, is that responsibility for racism of this kind in the Church probably does not belong much more on Church leadership (perhaps no more at all) than it does on every member who went along with it.

That leaders cultivate an unscriptural notion of obedience to them, and that the body of the Church went along with it, does not get Church members off of the hook. They should have exercised their own moral judgment (a main theme of Jesus' teachings throughout the Gospels is that he did not simply do what Moses told him, but rather took moral responsibility on himself. If we are to follow him, we should do likewise).

Church members also should have been reading their scriptures. Its amazing how many scriptures very much go against the grain of the priesthood ban. Other scriptures teach about the power of common consent, about the members' responsibility in a system of checks and balances (See D&C 107 and elsewhere). Church members also should have paid more attention to some of the leaders who tried to head off worship of the leadership. These leaders were less strident, and sometimes less charismatic than those around whom a cult of personality was so readily built, but they should have been listened to nonetheless. One of these leaders who tried to resist the conformist nonsense in his own way was J. Golden Kimball. It's a tragedy that he's only known as an irreverent jokester, and I wonder if someone didn't want it that way.

Go to Mosiah 29. If the people have a voice, the responsibility is on them. When they don't (and Noah is cited as an example by Mosiah), the "blame" is upon the head of the king (or leader).

Abinidai and Samuel the Lamanite, had, so far as the text reveals, no church leadership whatsoever. There isn't even evidence that they held the priesthood (which wouldn't be unusual in an OT context, when prophets and temple priests were often not the same people). As far as we know, those two are just people who took responsibility on themselves. The hierarchy and priesthood leadership stuff that Church members so readily try to impose on these circumstances simply isn't born out by the text.

I think members of the Church still have a voice, they've just been shamed and brow-beaten into not using it because leaders find it inconvenient.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

God has ceased intervening? Based on what? Because you say so? That's pure nonsense.

The elephant in the room in the LDS church is this: the relationship between heaven and Joseph Smith appears to be very different than the relationship between even and every subsequent prophet.

The argument one might make is JS took care of the needs of our dispensation and there is no further need for revelation in any substantial quantities. That we should rely on the BoM and the D&C and the general guidance of our leaders.

Well, that is the same argument that protestant Christians make about the Bible.

Another argument might say that it is because of our wickedness that we do not receive more revelation.

Now, I am not apostate, I do believe the Prophet/President receives inspiration, but I don't think it is nearly like Joseph Smith. GBH himself said that he received revelation through prayer and the Holy Ghost, which is exactly how most of us receive revelation. JS's experience seemed to go beyond that.

What I definitely DO NOT believe, is that God/Jesus appeared to any prophet and said "continue the priesthood ban". God is asking mud to become gold, and it isnt' an easy process. The boat moves onward, but sometimes the seas are rough, and sometimes the boat takes on water, and sometimes a course correction occurs.

[Indy Coug]

Arch's timeline of God:

Inifinity BC - 34 AD: Very active
34 - 1820: ZZZZzzzzzzzz
1820 - (somewhere between 1830 and 1844, depending on when Joseph strayed too far away): Active
1844 - Present: ZZzzzzzzzz

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

God permitted the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, Idi Amin, and many other atrocities.

God's non-intervention is not a standard of acceptance.

And the Mountain Meadows Massacre.