Scripture Question... What's Your Opinion?

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, Alex said:

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.

 

 

 

 

Yes you did.  And now you're attacking @zil.  You seem to like attacking people here who disagree with you.  I suggest you take a deep breath, untwist your undies and try again.

[Just_A_Guy]

On the blacks-and-priesthood thing, there are several sub currents at play.

1). Did Brigham Young hold attitudes about blacks that today would be considered racist?  Absolutely; he was a creature of his time.  

2). Did these attitudes about blacks lead Brigham to institute the priesthood ban?  Maybe, but not in the way that’s usually attributed.  We know (from John Turner’s biography of Young) that when Young first met William McCary at Winter Quarters in 1846, McCary already had a white wife in tow.  Young wasn’t particularly upset by this (so no, it isn’t about the repugnance of lascivious black men bedding virtuous white women), though McCary seems to have been sensitive to judgments from other camp members about his race.  Trying to assuage him, Young explicitly says that race has nothing to do with priesthood and points approvingly to the ministry of Walker Lewis in Massachusetts.  

Young heads off to Utah with the vanguard company of pioneers the next spring.  McCary travels to Cincinnati and goes off the rails in a lot of ways—yes, practicing polygamy; but also talking about being the reincarnation of Adam and a host of other patriarchs.  In two months he has built up a following of 60-100 people.  The guy is clearly a moonbat and has to go; so the high council at Winter Quarters excommunicates him.  

Brigham Young returns from Utah in 1848 and ratifies what has been done in his absence; but the issue is that McCary is still out there and has joined the throng of pretenders to the Mormon throne—Sidney Rigdon, William Marks, James Strang (who led away the Ball fellow @Alex mentioned earlier), and others like Lyman Wight and George Miller who are technically still Mormons but are clearly headed towards the exits.  The Church—contra our modern narratives—was not immediately united under Young; the American branches outside of Nauvoo were already bleeding members and some congregations were apostatizing wholesale.   

Young could spend time defending his status by delving into the merits and demerits of McCary’s claims; but there was another option—one of the Pratt brothers (I think Parley, but my memory is rusty), in dismissing McCary, jumped the shark a little bit and deployed a version of the Protestant “curse of Cain” trope.  Young, I think, was already predisposed by his culture to buy into stereotypes of blacks as being overly-emotional, unstable, smooth-talkers, lazy, and intellectually second-rate; and here was McCary conforming to all of those stereotypes.  How easy for Young to simply dismiss one of his rivals by saying “look, this clown isn’t even supposed to HAVE the priesthood in the first place!” and summarily dismiss his claims.  So he adopts Pratt’s reasoning, and McCary’s recruiting efforts amongst Mormons fizzle and McCary vanished into obscurity; and as far as Young’s concerned it’s “mission accomplished, and wagons ho!”

3). Was the ban instituted in contravention of God’s wishes?  That’s a trick question, really.  Was the Church’s move to Utah done in contravention of God’s wishes?  The only honest answer to this question is “yes”—we know that God’s wishes were for the Church to stay in Missouri and build Zion.  Does that mean Joseph and Brigham were betraying their callings by leading the Church away from Missouri (first to Illinois, then to Utah)?  Not at all.  They did what God wanted done under the circumstances in which the Church was compelled to operate.  I think the priesthood ban was much the same—ideally the world would have been such that the ban wasn’t necessary; but I think a number of factors came together in such a way that the net effect of the ban at that point in time worked for the benefit of the Church's social cohesiveness and its dealings with political entities.  If God wanted the ban removed, He’d have done it in the 1950s when David McKay prayed for permission to rescind it—but He didn’t. God was willing to own the policy; and I think we should let Him.

4). Did Brigham understand God’s complete thought processes when he instituted the ban?  I rather think he didn’t.  I doubt Brigham knew the full magnitude of what he was doing—he got inspiration as to what the Lord wanted done, came up with a couple of facile explanations as to what the Lord’s motivations might be, and moved forward.  That’s who Brigham was—he was always far more concerned with the “what” than the “why”; and that’s part of what made him such an effective colonizer.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

That's not my understanding of 2 Samuel 24.  First of all, the sin was not David's alone - God was angered by Israel.  David was the one who recognized his own sin and begged God for forgiveness.  The choices God gave him for penitence were 1.) 7 years famine,  2,) 3 months war,  3.) 3 days plague.  There was no option for David's exile.  David chose the option where he would be punished just as much as the people.  Famine wouldn't punish him because he is the King and would therefore not starve.  War wouldn't punish him because he is the King and would therefore be protected from it.  Plague kills everyone, even Kings (as is evidenced by the plague killing the son of the King of Egypt).  David had faith that God will be merciful to those who need mercy so he expressed to God that he preferred the plague.  God allowed the plague to rage through the land and it ended up killing 70,000 including people who are not of David's house all in one day.  David cried out to God why God would allow the innocent to be punished.  He begged for mercy, built an altar, burnt an offering, and prayed that God may limit the punishment to those who sinned (Israelites).  God was merciful and ended the punishment that day instead of going 2 more days.

This is a very beautiful story of the full cycle of Repentance.   

Edited December 15, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

I'm not getting the same interpretation from that passage.

Quote

or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee?

That is not David's exile.  That is the armies of enemies continue to route them for three months -- losing each encounter.  How many men would have been lost in that scenario?

And verse 14 emphasizes this:

Quote

 let us fall now into the hand of the Lord; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

He would rather suffer his people to be killed by God (who judges rightly) than be killed by enemy hands which will simply strike whithersoever they will.

EDIT: I just read @anatess2's response.  Yeah.  What she said.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

I’m not convinced, guys.  The Lord doesn’t make the option general war; He makes the option about *David* going on the run from his enemies—it was David who catastrophized and rationalized the exile option into a scenario that couldn’t help but hurt his people; because David himself couldn’t (or didn’t want to) conceive of a scenario where he might, Joseph-Smith-like, draw his pursuers away from his innocent followers by going on the run virtually alone.

David’s choice also compares poorly with Moses’ example on Sinai of volunteering to take the punishment for his people’s sins even as Moses Himself was blameless.  It compares poorly with Abraham, haggling with the Lord over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.  And indeed, in verse 17 David finally acknowledges that it is he, rather than his people, whose sin brought this about.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m not convinced, guys.  The Lord doesn’t make the option general war; He makes the option about *David* going on the run from his enemies—it was David who catastrophized and rationalized the exile option into a scenario that couldn’t help but hurt his people; because David himself couldn’t (or didn’t want to) conceive of a scenario where he might, Joseph-Smith-like, draw his pursuers away from his innocent followers by going on the run virtually alone.

David’s choice also compares poorly with Moses’ example on Sinai of volunteering to take the punishment for his people’s sins even as Moses Himself was blameless.  It compares poorly with Abraham, haggling with the Lord over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.  And indeed, in verse 17 David finally acknowledges that it is he, rather than his people, whose sin brought this about.

Here's the verse:

So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.

I don't understand why those bolded would mean only David on option 2 when it means him and his people on the others.

 

Here's the same account from Chronicles:

So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.

This shows clearly that in any of the choices, Israelites will die.  David chose that they die by God's hand rather than man's.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by anatess2

[Alex]

3 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

@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.

What you say is well considered given the attitude of many.

I prefer to hold to a theory than to hold to no theory- better to have something in one's mind than to have nothing / book burning.

 

 

They say ignorance is bliss but I wouldn't know

 

 

[Alex]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Yes you did.  And now you're attacking @zil.  You seem to like attacking people here who disagree with you.  I suggest you take a deep breath, untwist your undies and try again.

Nah. Tis not an attack. Merely an observation.

[Midwest LDS]

I agree @Alex I always try to tread carefully when there is no hard and fast answer to a question, especially with investigators. I hate to give answers I think are right and then find out I'm wrong later. Doesn't mean I don't still frequently mess up that rule, but I do try to live by it ☺.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I agree @Alex I always try to tread carefully when there is no hard and fast answer to a question, especially with investigators. I hate to give answers I think are right and then find out I'm wrong later. Doesn't mean I don't still frequently mess up that rule, but I do try to live by it ☺.

That's a great rule my friend. We should all live by that. 

[Alex]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On the blacks-and-priesthood thing, there are several sub currents at play.

@Alex

 

3). Was the ban instituted in contravention of God’s wishes?  That’s a trick question, really.  Was the Church’s move to Utah done in contravention of God’s wishes?  The only honest answer to this question is “yes”—we know that God’s wishes were for the Church to stay in Missouri and build Zion.  Does that mean Joseph and Brigham were betraying their callings by leading the Church away from Missouri (first to Illinois, then to Utah)?  Not at all.  They did what God wanted done under the circumstances in which the Church was compelled to operate.  I think the priesthood ban was much the same—ideally the world would have been such that the ban wasn’t necessary; but I think a number of factors came together in such a way that the net effect of the ban at that point in time worked for the benefit of the Church's social cohesiveness and its dealings with political entities.  If God wanted the ban removed, He’d have done it in the 1950s when David McKay prayed for permission to rescind it—but He didn’t. God was willing to own the policy; and I think we should let Him.

4). Did Brigham understand God’s complete thought processes when he instituted the ban?  I rather think he didn’t.  I doubt Brigham knew the full magnitude of what he was doing—he got inspiration as to what the Lord wanted done, came up with a couple of facile explanations as to what the Lord’s motivations might be, and moved forward.  That’s who Brigham was—he was always far more concerned with the “what” than the “why”; and that’s part of what made him such an effective colonizer.

On your point 3, as I recall, Joseph had a discussion with Brigham after a free mason meeting in which Joseph said to Brigham words to the effect of 'we will have to move out West to escape the persecution'. I think that was where the seed for Brigham's migration came from.

Hmm, I have heard it said that Joseph is the 'prophet's prophet' - It's an interesting axiom.

 

 

[Midwest LDS]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

That's a great rule my friend. We should all live by that. 

Thanks. I had to come up with it when I was a teeneager and knew everything, and managed to be really wrong with some church questions from some non members. You know one of those times your brain never lets you forget? Gotta love learning by failing lol.

[anatess2]

See, you're new and so we're still trying to get a feel for what you really mean - we don't see anything past your words so we don't know if it came with a chuckle, tongue-in-cheek, sarcasm, humor, etc.

Carb we've known a long long time.  So we know when he's acerbic, humorous, etc. and know he's a good guy overall.

So see here:

10 minutes ago, Alex said:

They say ignorance is bliss but I wouldn't know

That one is easy.  The smiley gives it away.

19 hours ago, Alex said:

It's not evil for latter day historians to see the actions of those 2 as influencing Brigham. If you have a problem with historians then maybe you and vort can organize burning their books ?

That one, not sure if you're trying to inject humor or insult.  It sounded to me as an attack.

 

19 hours ago, Alex said:

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

Carb has been here so long that we know for a fact he doesn't do that.  So instead of being an observation, that came out as an attack.

 

18 hours 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 ?!

 

That came out as an attack against zil's defense of carb.  Especially since the "I let it go" is misplaced since carb did not address that to you but to us.

 

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

Nah. Tis not an attack. Merely an observation.

That's not how it came out.  But I'll take your word for it.  So, my response to this would be - your observation is wrong.

Hope that helps.

 

[Alex]

Just now, anatess2 said:

See, you're new and so we're still trying to get a feel for what you really mean - we don't see anything past your words so we don't know if it came with a chuckle, tongue-in-cheek, sarcasm, humor, etc.

Carb we've known a long long time.  So we know when he's acerbic, humorous, etc. and know he's a good guy overall.

So see here:

That one is easy.  The smiley gives it away.

That one, not sure if you're trying to inject humor or insult.  It sounded to me as an attack.

 

Carb has been here so long that we know for a fact he doesn't do that.  So instead of being an observation, that came out as an attack.

 

That came out as an attack against zil's defense of carb.  Especially since the "I let it go" is misplaced since carb did not address that to you but to us.

 

That's not how it came out.  But I'll take your word for it.  So, my response to this would be - your observation is wrong.

Hope that helps.

 

You are entitled to believe whatever you want.

carb is too lazy to read- I posted a link to an article a few days ago and he didn't bother reading it, then he questioned it. If zil needs to defend his actions that is her prerogative as a web crusader in her divine quest for the holy grail.

 

 

 

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Alex said:

You are entitled to believe whatever you want.

carb is too lazy to read- I posted a link to an article a few days ago and he didn't bother reading it, then he questioned it. If zil needs to defend his actions that is her prerogative as a web crusader in her divine quest for the holy grail.

@Carborendum is not too lazy to read.  And @zil is not going on a divine quest for the holy grail.  She's in a divine quest for the perfect brony to go with her fountain pens.

Edited December 15, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m not convinced, guys.

I for one was not trying to convince you.  I easily see where you got that interpretation from.  But I simply disagree with it.  I see my interpretation as correct.  Sorry you don't.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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

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.

And

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

Yes I do think we actually know, but this can spiral into a very controversial subject.   At times I might go into detail, but at other times...like this one, I think what LDS historians may state would not sit comfortably with many people and possibly bring out anti-LDS sentiment, people trying to convince others of things or worse.  Furthermore, this is one subject that can highly disturb people.

The Essays are the church's best attempt thus far to put out secularly historically accurate information in regards to various church subjects, including some very touchy subjects that tend to make people react in very emotional ways. 

They have been gone over by individuals trying to be somewhat balanced in their views of LDS history and present an accurate view from the vantage point of a Mormon.

It does not make it perfect and it does not make it gospel, doctrine, or anything but an essay on subjects relevant to the LDS church on the LDS's website.

In regards to your OTHER question though...

YES...I DO accept the Church's official statements in regards to my current understanding of the gospel and doctrine.  Does that make me fanatically LDS...well...maybe.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

@Carborendum is not too lazy to read.

Only if I've already read the same thing about a dozen times and realize it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

YES...I DO accept the Church's official statements in regards to my current understanding of the gospel and doctrine.  Does that make me fanatically LDS...well...maybe.

This is what I don't understand.  You said that we DO know why.  Now you're saying that you accept the official statement that says we DON'T know why.  Huh?

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, Carborendum said:

This is what I don't understand.  You said that we DO know why.  Now you're saying that you accept the official statement that says we DON'T know why.  Huh?

I'll PM you.  It's too hot in here already and I don't need to be burned at the stake yet...

[Alex]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Carb is not too lazy to read.  And zil is not going on a divine quest for the holy grail.  She's in a divine quest for the perfect brony to go with her fountain pens.

whatever

 

But on to a different more interesting subject. See how God uses symbolism in the number of years, months and days in the story of King David. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if Brigham had have used one of God's numbers re the negro and the priesthood. As in something like 'a negro male can't be given the priesthood until they have stood worthily in the church for 7 years or perhaps, the negro shall be denied the priesthood for seventy years, or even the negro shall not be given the priesthood until they have been active for 40 years.

It just would have been more of a, hmm, a continuation of the established pattern where we see God's hand.

 

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Only if I've already read the same thing about a dozen times and realize it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Yeah.  That's why I get the impression that @Alex concludes that if you disagree with his reading of it then you haven't read it.  But that's just me.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yeah.  That's why I get the impression that @Alex concludes that if you disagree with his reading of it then you haven't read it.  But that's just me.

The thing is that I don't actually disagree with most of what he's written.  I simply have no idea what it has to do with what I'm talking about.  They just seem like complete non sequiturs and red herrings.  So how can I agree or disagree with anything he's said when it doesn't even address the topic?

Edited December 15, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, Alex said:

whatever

 

But on to a different more interesting subject. See how God uses symbolism in the number of years, months and days in the story of King David. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if Brigham had have used one of God's numbers re the negro and the priesthood. As in something like 'a negro male can't be given the priesthood until they have stood worthily in the church for 7 years or perhaps, the negro shall be denied the priesthood for seventy years, or even the negro shall not be given the priesthood until they have been active for 40 years.

It just would have been more of a, hmm, a continuation of the established pattern where we see God's hand.

 

Hah hah.  Philosophies of man, I tell ya.  Hobby horse prophesying is not how the kingdom was built.  The kingdom is built by God says.  So, if God says blacks can't have the priesthood today, no amount of numerology can change today to 7 years.  And if God did not say blacks can't have the priesthood today, no amount of numerology can make 7 years into a correct principle.

Edited December 15, 2017 by anatess2

[Alex]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Hah hah.  Philosophies of man, I tell ya.  Hobby horse prophesying is not how the kingdom was built.  The kingdom is built by God says.  So, if God says blacks can't have the priesthood today, no amount of numerology can change today to 7 years.

Eh, philosophies of man? God used the symbolism of his numbers all through the old and new testaments. He even flooded the planet using those same numbers or sent the planet into darkness using that symbolism. Even the Book of Mormon has that symbolism in it. 3, 7, 12, 40, 70- when we see those numbers in scripture it is the divine plan in action.

Maybe it's just me but those numbers reassure me. They assuage doubt in that they link the past with the present- much like a rainbow.