Scripture Question... What's Your Opinion?

[Guest]

Am I the only one who sees zero logic in Alex's post here?  Am I just being as dense as he seems to think I am?  Or are we just nowhere near the same page?

[Alex]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Am I the only one who sees zero logic in Alex's post here?  Am I just being as dense as he seems to think I am?  Or are we just nowhere near the same page?

Some of those historians are LDS you know...

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

Some of those historians are LDS you know...

Hello, Alex.  This is Earth.  Have we met?

[Alex]

Am I just being as dense as he seems to think I am?

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Hello, Alex.  This is Earth.  Have we met?

Well, you have a history here of diving in without looking. Take the case of the Hyde Park visitors center/chapel where I know for a fact that is leased and you were adamant that it wasn't- I showed you how leases are bought in UK law and are considered sold until the lease expires. You got so puffed up though that you wouldn't let it go, so, I can't help but see that this is behavioral for you.

Now to quote you here, you just said "Am I just being as dense as he seems to think I am?" Well, I'm not going to answer that.

 

Back to the 2 black priesthood holders that some historians feel influenced things.

Q- Do we know if Brigham received that revelation from the Lord first or was it Brigham who took the problem to the Lord and told him that he needed to make a change to the laws on earth in order to keep order within the church?

A- We don't know. We do know that sometimes Brigham made decisions on behalf of the church that were rushed- sometimes the Lord allowed Brigham to make those mistakes in order to teach him a lesson. For the members who followed Brigham's directives, well, they followed the Lord's prophet and are under no condemnation, just as those in ancient Israel who drank the water from the rock that Moses struck with his staff (knowingly disobeying the lord), are under no condemnation for drinking the water.

 

Hmm, and to those who feel we are touching upon sacred here, well, I can only offer some advice- Sunlight is the best disinfectant. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Alex

[zil]

19 minutes ago, Alex said:

Well, you have a history here of diving in without looking.

Erm, no, he has a history of many years on this site and being respected and understood by the regulars.  You have a short history of being a presumptive newbie who can't be bothered to get the lay of the land before he starts spouting nonsensical insults for no apparent reason - in other words, your reactions are out of proportion to whatever triggered them (and are often bafflingly unrelated to the post you quote, and show a complete unwillingness to resolve confusion, in favor of "fighting back" against an imagined offense).  You will, of course, reject this analysis, but that doesn't make it erroneous.  The unfortunate part is that you'll ignore the chance to learn that you are misunderstanding and perhaps being misunderstood, and work to keep it that way instead.

[Alex]

1 minute ago, zil said:

Erm, no, he has a history of many years on this site and being respected and understood by the regulars.  You have a short history of being a presumptive newbie who can't be bothered to get the lay of the land before he starts spouting nonsensical insults for no apparent reason - in other words, your reactions are out of proportion to whatever triggered them (and are often bafflingly unrelated to the post you quote, and show a complete unwillingness to resolve confusion, in favor of "fighting back" against an imagined offense).  You will, of course, reject this analysis, but that doesn't make it erroneous.  The unfortunate part is that you'll ignore the chance to learn that you are misunderstanding and perhaps being misunderstood, and work to keep it that way instead.

Meh, he asked if "he was as dense as he seems to think I am?" and I let it go, yet you take offense on his behalf anyway ?!

 

[zil]

12 minutes ago, Alex said:

Meh, he asked if "he was as dense as he seems to think I am?" and I let it go, yet you take offense on his behalf anyway ?!

Carb was asking the rest of us if he (Carb) was in the wrong and failing to understand something (being dense) because your reply to him seemed to imply that you thought he (Carb) was dense, but he (Carb) couldn't see any reason why you would think or imply that.

If you thought he was calling you dense, you are wrong.  He was not.

[Alex]

Just now, zil said:

Carb was asking the rest of us if he (Carb) was in the wrong and failing to understand something (being dense) because your reply to him seemed to imply that you thought he (Carb) was dense, but he (Carb) couldn't see any reason why you would think or imply that.

If you thought he was calling you dense, you are wrong.  He was not.

Yes, I know he wasn't calling me dense- he was asking if he is dense. I didn't answer that question.

 

Hmm, are you on a crusade to take offense on behalf of others, wherever possible?

 

 

 

 

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Alex said:

Hmm, are you on a crusade to take offense on behalf of others, wherever possible?

I'm not offended in the least - I'm trying to tell you that you appear to be attacking long-time, respected forum members for no apparent reason and trying to argue rather than reach understanding.  If that's not your intent, then misunderstanding is happening, and we should all work on that until we understand your communication style and you understand others' styles.  If that is your intent, well, don't expect people to continue conversing with you over the long run.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

If you have a problem with historians then maybe you and vort can organize burning their books ?

An excellent idea. What do you say, Carb? I'm thinking we use 190-proof whiskey as an accelerant.

[Alex]

Just now, zil said:

I'm not offended in the least - I'm trying to tell you that you appear to be attacking long-time, respected forum members for no apparent reason and trying to argue rather than reach understanding.  If that's not your intent, then misunderstanding is happening, and we should all work on that until we understand your communication style and you understand others' styles.  If that is your intent, well, don't expect people to continue conversing with you over the long run.

No, you jumped in to be a crusader. I did not attack your long time web friend- I merely showed how carb had jumped in before (which goes to his repeated behavior) and refused to let things go and that has offended you.

 

 

 

 

[Vort]

50 minutes ago, Alex said:

Meh, he asked if "he was as dense as he seems to think I am?" and I let it go, yet you take offense on his behalf anyway ?!

Alex, your reading comprehension is underdeveloped. Taking offense at Carb's self-deprecating comment is simply evidence that your interpretations cannot be trusted.

Seriously, chill out. Be a friend. You still have the opportunity to find a community here and enjoy fellowship.

[Alex]

Just now, Vort said:

Alex, your reading comprehension is underdeveloped. Taking offense at Carb's self-deprecating comment is simply evidence that your interpretations cannot be trusted.

Seriously, chill out. Be a friend. You still have the opportunity to find a community here and enjoy fellowship.

Eh? He asked if he was dense and I didn't answer.

 

I'm totally chilled with not needing to answer his question 

[JohnsonJones]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

An excellent idea. What do you say, Carb? I'm thinking we use 190-proof whiskey as an accelerant.

Wwwait a Second!!!!

Why don't we hold off on burning the Historian and his books just yet...

I'm not so sure I'm wanting to be burned at the stake with all that stuff quite yet...I may be just around the corner to death...but no need to hurry it along...

I just posted a link to an LDS article...other than that I claim I haven't been involved in this thread all that much in regards to this subject...

No need to get hot under the collar (or, more to the point, make me hot under the collar as the rest of me burns up!!).

[zil]

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Why don't we hold off on burning the Historian and his books just yet...

Re-read - it's only the books being burned.  You're safe.  For now.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, zil said:

Re-read - it's only the books being burned.  You're safe.  For now.

Oh, but you don't understand.  I LOVE my books.  Ever watched Farenheith 451?  I'm that individual that would rather burn with my books than see them burn!!!

Okay...spiritual weakness on my part.  I should not be so attached to worldly things.

[zil]

Just now, JohnsonJones said:

Oh, but you don't understand.  I LOVE my books.  Ever watched Farenheith 451?  I'm that individual that would rather burn with my books than see them burn!!!

Well, throwing yourself on the burning pile of books isn't exactly  the same as them lighting you on fire...  I mean, you can't really blame them if you start going to extremes.

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Okay...spiritual weakness on my part.  I should not be so attached to worldly things.

Well, I think it's safe to say that if you do go to such extremes, you (well, your spirit anyway) won't be attached to worldly things for long.

[Alex]

31 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Oh, but you don't understand.  I LOVE my books.  Ever watched Farenheith 451?  I'm that individual that would rather burn with my books than see them burn!!!

Okay...spiritual weakness on my part.  I should not be so attached to worldly things.

Hmm, I've only read that book about 8 times now. I like to revisit it every 5 years or so.

I didn't like the movie that much. Oh wait, the overhead monorail thingy was cute but the rest is a bit dated.

 

Interesting fact on that book- if you read the intro closely, you'll find 2 mentions of Mormons or the Mormon church whilst the rest of the churches he mentions get only one. I got the sense from reading that intro closely that Bradbury had taken an interest of some kind or another in the restored gospel. He obviously rejected it but was still a tad intrigued by it at the time.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Alex

[Blossom76]

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think historians and the LDS church and others have a good idea of why it started.  However, this is one subject that becomes far too controversial with many to really discuss in an intelligent matter normally.

Because this is so, at times the best thing (but not always) to do is to refer an individual to the church essays on the subject and leave it be.

I'll simply post this...

Race and the Priesthood

It will not satisfy everyone...but here it is.

I just read the above mentioned link,  I mean I guess it must be true because it is on a church website.  I know that time was a racist time in history but this seems a bit overboard, I sincerely don't think that God would want any of his people excluded from his church.  I had no idea this was once church policy, It's not very nice to say the least.

Am I correct in believing that this is something that Brigham Young implemented and that Joseph Smith had absolutely nothing to do with this line of thought?

Edited December 15, 2017 by Blossom76

[Alex]

43 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I just read the above mentioned link,  I mean I guess it must be true because it is on a church website.  I know that time was a racist time in history but this seems a bit overboard, I sincerely don't think that God would want any of his people excluded from his church.  I had no idea this was once church policy, It's not very nice to say the least.

Am I correct in believing that this is something that Brigham Young implemented and that Joseph Smith had absolutely nothing to do with this line of thought?

Well, Joseph Smith ordained 2 black males to the Melchizedek Priesthood. There weren't many black males who were given the priesthood- I'd say less than 7 in total by the time Brigham decreed that the negro wouldn't receive the priesthood anymore. There could be more but that's about the number my reading has discovered.

I don't believe the barring of the negro from receiving the priesthood was racist however there may have been a racist element in the members who got upset with one of the black males for a) taking multiple wives without permission, b) those women were white, c) mixing of seed with a descendant of Ham (lineage of Cane). 

Brigham rebuked racism among the saints however he was very much opposed to the line of Cane mixing with Israel.

Joseph Smith gave worthy black males the priesthood. Joseph and Brigham were free masons and they had no issue with black male free masons (hence the term 'free' mason). Joseph said we have abolitionist ideals but we are not abolitionists. I believe Joseph said this because it wasn't his mission to fight a pre-civil war. His mission was to be the prophet of the restoration.

It gets tricky because the records are dispersed- the church does not own all the letters of the prophets nor even the minutes of some crucial meetings. Heck, as a church we haven't even digitized our membership records prior to 1980 in many parts of the Western world.

We have scattered records that indicate Brigham was leaning toward a big decision before the decree was made- one record of minutes kept by a non LDS library shows a discussion between Brigham Young and Orson Hyde where Brigham is discussing a tribe of native American Indians who flatly reject the descendants of Ham. You read that and you can see that he is considering big picture issues, plus he's trying to deal with one of the few black priesthood holders who has begun preaching that he is Adam.

I think Brigham took the problems to the Lord and told the Lord what he intended to do. I do not believe Joseph would have steered the course Brigham did, but in saying that, it is the Lord's ship and the Lord picks the captain.

sigh...

If only Hyrum hadn't demanded to protect his brother and gone with Joseph to Carthage. The church wouldn't have split etc etc etc.

 

For some reason we can read the old testament and say something similar of King David or the many kings who followed after him but if we say anything remotely like unto it now, we are almost accused of heresy by saints who would rather not know.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think historians and the LDS church and others have a good idea of why it started. 

Race and the Priesthood

 

Let's take a look at what the article says and see if historians really do know:

Quote

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

Well, I saw an article that went into a lot of what we DO know happened.  Then it went over several theories that have been posited.  But then they specifically state ^^ that these theories are all wrong.  It never says what the TRUE reason was, now does it?

Further.

Quote

The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.

--https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

And

Quote

For a time in the church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765555339/LDS-Church-condemns-past-racism-inside-and-outside-the-church.html  Interview with Church Spokesperson, Michael Purdy.

So, you think we actually do know?  Then I guess the Church's official statements cannot be accepted as our current understanding anymore.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I just read the above mentioned link,  I mean I guess it must be true because it is on a church website.  I know that time was a racist time in history but this seems a bit overboard, I sincerely don't think that God would want any of his people excluded from his church.  I had no idea this was once church policy, It's not very nice to say the least.

Am I correct in believing that this is something that Brigham Young implemented and that Joseph Smith had absolutely nothing to do with this line of thought?

I need to point out a correction:  Blacks were NEVER excluded from the Church.  But black men were not allowed to officiate in ordinances.  And they were not allowed to have endowments.  See LEVITES below.

Here are some things to consider.

1) When Joseph was young he had grown up in a time when slavery was a reality.  Abolition was barely talked about.  As a simple farmboy, he certainly wasn't into politics.  He probably just accepted things as they were simply because that's the way they were.  As he got older and became more aware and involved in the world around him, he did take an interest in the slavery issue.  At the founding of the Church (1830) he had the same opinion of many peers.  He made several statements early on that as long as the slave owners treated their slaves well and took care of them well, then it wasn't so bad.  It was a shame that it still existed, but what are you going to do?  He took in runaway slaves into his home and treated them like guests.  One such woman stayed in their home for many years.  She stated in her journal (she learned to read and write) that she was not treated as a slave nor a servant, but as one of the family.  As he was running for President (just prior to his death) his position changed from distaste over slavery to a firm abolitionist view.

2) Black men were ordained to the priesthood under both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  Under both prophets blacks were treated equally (as far as doctrines and opportunities).  Individuals, of course, may still have had their own racist tendencies.  But that was a cultural thing that the Church influence hadn't gotten rid of yet.  But both prophets made numerous statements that indicate they themselves didn't have a problem with race.

3) Joseph once, as mayor of Nauvoo and justice of the peace, had to convict a black man for public drunkenness. There was a fine levied which the man could not pay.  Joseph sold his own horse and gave the proceeds to the black man to pay the fine.  This doesn't sound like a man with racist tendencies to me.  And considering the time in which he lived, this was astounding.

Was this action overboard?  Maybe by our current standards.  But when we don't even know the reason why it began, we have no way of properly judging their actions.

There are so many stories that I've heard about how blacks reacted to this policy.  It wasn't just back then, but even in the 70s blacks accepted this as truth.  They gained a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel because the Spirit testified to them it was so.  And when they learned of the policy, it hurt them.  I'm not even Black and it hurts me.  I can only imagine how they felt.  But they also gained a testimony that it was supposed to be that way without even understanding why.

The prophets from the 50s to the 70s (1978 was when the ban was lifted) had prayed for the ban to be lifted.  They knew that Brigham had said that such a day would come.  They hoped it would be during their tenure.  And finally in the upper room of the SLC Temple, the Spirit was poured out upon not just one man, but on 15 men who all had different backgrounds and opinions on the topic.  All 15 men testified that the Spirit unequivocally told them that it was time to lift the ban.

LEVITES

There is a parallel in the Old Testament.  There were ordinances that only Levites could perform.  No others were allowed to officiate.  Something to think about.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Guest

[Midwest LDS]

@Blossom76 You would be correct in your statement that the priesthood ban originated under Brigham Young. The fact of the matter is, we really don't know why it was instituted. I can give you theories that I have on the issue, but in the end that's all they are, theories. While we can make educated guesses as to why Brigham Young felt a priesthood ban was neccesssary and why the Lord let it go on so long, we don't really know the answer. I know Brigham Young was a mighty prophet, one of our most dynamic ones and, in many ways, one of my favorites, and I know that sometimes the Lord makes allowances for weaknesses in his people (one reason why it was decades before the Word of Wisdom was made mandatory and why some of the Old Testament gospel laws are harsher than the laws proclaimed by Christ in the New Testament), but until there are more historical documents found or some sort of revelation on the subject, we just won't fully know the answer why.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

An excellent idea. What do you say, Carb? I'm thinking we use 190-proof whiskey as an accelerant.

LOL!  You know me.  I love book burning.  I just don't know why anyone bothers reading nowadays.  We all know that people read books because they cannot think for themselves after all.  How much does Everclear cost nowadays?

I've been burning my felled trees recently.  I found that gasoline burns VERY hot.  I can't get within 5 feet of the burn pile without singeing my hairs.   However, diesel seems to work quite well.  Plus -- no explosions.  I had a couple close calls with gasoline.

Did you know that pure ethanol will actually self-ignite at room temperature?  I just looked that up.  Maybe I'll use that to start a fire -- during winter.

[Just_A_Guy]

On the subject of King David:  I can look past a lot of his actions due to cultural differences (and due to the fact that the OT account has almost certainly been dressed up—the word “Nabal” literally means “fool”, for example—so we’re never going to know exactly what happened here, or why).

But, I have a hard time with 2 Samuel 24:10-15–David sins, so God lets David pick his punishment—famine, pestilence (i.e. plague), or Davy boy can live as a refugee for three months.  Does our guy take the self-sacrificing route?  Of course not!  “Hit us with a plague”, David says; and thus seventy thousand Israelites die so that our hero David isn’t inconvenienced with a few months’ exile.  Granted, that account may also be missing some pieces; but it sure doesn’t look good.  It seems the main reason so many people admire David as a king, is that they think God approves of everything he did—if folks took that presumption out of the equation, I think David’s stock would go way down.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Just_A_Guy