- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DaddyB wrote:
Keep in mind that if Jesus really is running this church, all he had to do is appear to the prophet and tell him to change things as he did with Pres. Snow to change the way the new President should be chosen. Since he didn’t, we must assume it was okay with him that this policy remained in place as long as it did
No, we don’t have to assume it was OK, we could also assume that Jesus is not actually running the church. I try not to ass-u-me.
DaddyB, I have no interest in debating with you about whether the priesthood/temple ban was the will of God.
If you are interested in such a debate and the basis of your logic rests in the assumption/belief/knowledge that because Jesus Himself leads the LDS Church directly, then the policy MUST have been inspired, then I again submit that you probably don’t understand the purpose of this site and community.
The Church’s own newest statement decimates the idea that the Priesthood ban was God’s will. I am glad it has been published and hope, without much faith, that it will be mentioned in General Conference at some point.
Old-Timer wrote:The Church’s own newest statement decimates the idea that the Priesthood ban was God’s will.
I am glad it has been published and hope, without much faith, that it will be mentioned in General Conference at some point.
I agree, and while it hasn’t been directly mentioned, I do believe Pres. Uchtdorf did make a sideways reference to it before it came out in his admission that church leaders have made mistakes. More direct would be better, though.
DarkJedi wrote:I do believe Pres. Uchtdorf did make a sideways reference to it before it came out in his admission that church leaders have made mistakes. More direct would be better, though.
It would have been better for us, but taken in the context of the whole Church, I think Pres U’s statement was perfect. It was a gigantic step forward and was the right thing at the right time and something we have already built upon.I moderate synchronous discussions all the time. And I use essentially the same process. There is open disagreement on issues, and I listen to what everyone’s opinion is. Often there is consensus, sometimes there is not. If it turns out the team is divided, and there is an even number of Yays and Nays, then I take the right to either table the issue until we can look into something that bears on the subject, or, if time is an issue,reserve the right make the final decision. This works very well, but only when the team members are very strong in their respective areas. When they are new, inexperienced, or lack technical skills, this approach can be a recipe for failure.
I don’t really see anything different in Eyring’s description than what I see in my meetings all the time. I feel as though it’s another form of Church-u-mony that makes the church out to be bigger than what it really is.
DarkJedi wrote:DaddyB wrote:Keep in mind that if Jesus really is running this church, all he had to do is appear to the prophet and tell him to change things as he did with Pres. Snow to change the way the new President should be chosen. Since he didn’t, we must assume it was okay with him that this policy remained in place as long as it did
No, we don’t have to assume it was OK, we could also assume that Jesus is not actually running the church. I try not to ass-u-me.
You missed the IF in my statement. I said that IF Jesus is really running this church. Now with that stipulation, can you think of any other conclusion we could come to? I could be wrong, but based on the information we have at this time, it is the only logical conclusion, that Jesus was okay with it or he would have stopped it before it got started or soon thereafter.Yes, I can think of multiple reasons, even if Jesus was and is running the Church. Agency is at the top of the list, and Jacob 5 is a good description of allowing bitter fruit to continue in the vineyard until the root is strong enough to prune it – right up until the end.
Again, the Church’s most recent explanation doesn’t even hint that the ban was God’s will – and it at least implies that it wasn’t. In this case, I will accept our current leaders’ apparent understanding and not say the ban was God’s will.
Finally, I think God is “okay” with lots of things that are morally wrong – in the sense that he allows them and waits patiently for us to pull our heads out and understand what he really wants. If that is all you meant, I can agree; if you meant God wanted the ban to occur, I couldn’t disagree more strongly.
On Own Now wrote:
Quote:Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.
If there were a revelation, it surely would have been recorded. If it had been recorded, then the Church, in its above statement, would be lying. I prefer to believe that the Church came to an honest conclusion that it was policy, not doctrine.
You really believe that every inspired policy has a corresponding officially recorded revelation? There are countless examples that prove that is not the case, including the story in this video. It also appears from your statement that you believed that if it is inspired it must be called a doctrine and anything that is just a policy must not be inspired. Is that what you believe?On Own Now wrote:DaddyB,
I have no interest in debating with you about whether the priesthood/temple ban was the will of God.
If you are interested in such a debate and the basis of your logic rests in the assumption/belief/knowledge that because Jesus Himself leads the LDS Church directly, then the policy MUST have been inspired, then I again submit that you probably don’t understand the purpose of this site and community.
First of all, I do not believe that every policy in this church is inspired or has to be, even with Jesus leading it. However, IF he is leading it, the uninspired policies that are put in place are still allowed by him because they do not cause enough disruption to the mission of the church. I believe he allows just enough error to allow the leaders their agency and to learn form their mistakes. So is that view permissible on this site?Old-Timer wrote:The Church’s own newest statement decimates the idea that the Priesthood ban was God’s will.
I am glad it has been published and hope, without much faith, that it will be mentioned in General Conference at some point.
This is another interesting belief. The only thing I can see that the newest statement makes clear is that the assumptions about why the policy and when it would be changed were uninformed guesses that turned out to be wrong. Where does the statement clearly say that the policy itself was not of God?[Admin Note]: Almost everything is allowed here, as long as it is shared respectfully – and as long as the nature and tone of discussion is not like a debate. Also, just to say it, one of the things that is not allowed here is racism. (No accusation in saying that.)
That applies to everyone, especially with an emotional topic like the ban.
I think it is almost impossible for someone who has no pre-existing belief to read the New Testament and come away with a view of the traditional Trinity of a three-in-one God, and that even more clearly the case with the Gospels. I think the same is true of the “Race and the Priesthood” explanation on LDS.org – that it is almost impossible for someone who has no pre-existing belief to read it and come away with a view that the ban was what God actually wanted in his heart or would call pure doctrine. I’ve read it as slowly and objectively as I can, trying to see how I would read it if I had no stake in the issue (as I was trained to do as the History teacher I used to be) – and my reading of it from that mindset says, “The ban was a policy driven by the racial ideologies of the time from which Joseph was free but Brigham and others were not.”
Well said, Ray. I originally posted some snippets from the essay, but decided to move it to a different thread so that it wasn’t position as a debate.
As I read the new statement, I see nothing there that disagrees with my explanation of the ban in the early and mid 70s on my mission and after. I never believed or taught that it had anything to do with racism or any inferiority in that race. To conclude that would be to conclude that women are inferior as well. I believed and taught every principle brought out in the statement and saw no contradiction with the current policy at that time. I guess my point is that although those at the time of Brigham may have held racist views, we need to carefully consider the views on race of the prophets and apostles in the 20th century. Do you really believe that Presidents Grant, Smith, McKay, etc. believed that blacks were inferior and did not deserve the priesthood? Pres. McKay went through a similar process to that of Kimball assuming that doctrinally it was possible that the time had come. Do you really believe that his own racial prejudice was so strong that the Lord couldn’t get through to get him the right answer? If that were so, he wouldn’t have even been inquiring.
I have a hard time believing that Christ, who cares for and loves each individual so deeply, would allow such a policy to persist, unless it was part of his plan and was in some way for the good of those affected and for the good of the church as a whole. There are examples of policies that had a far less impact that he did give direct revelation on to change, some of which did not even involve the seeking of the recipient. A good example is where Jesus appeared to Lorenzo Snow in the temple to have him change the traditional way of choosing the new prophet. If Jesus cared as much about equality or fairness as we think we do, why would he not have done the same thing with this policy?
If you believe that this policy is without precedent, you are forgetting that God withheld the gospel and the priesthood for a time from the gentiles. That change was not even sought after by Peter and the others, but came anyway. For centuries only a select few of one tribe of the Israelites were allowed to hold the priesthood and participate in temple ordinances. So how can anyone say that this policy is without precedent? Do you think that it was only because Moses felt that all the other tribes were inferior to the Levites?
The very reasons that say this policy could not have been inspired by God would argue just as convincingly that God would not have allowed it in the first place or at least to continue very long. The most likely conclusion of that reasoning to me is that this church is not Christ’s church. That is why there would need to be a clear statement that the policy was not inspired, for me to believe otherwise. I can see very good reasons for the brethren to not come out and clearly state that it was indeed inspired if it was. Such a statement would be forcing meat into the mouths of infants and would open up a Pandora’s Box of unnecessary questions that could not be answered.
So please help me see what I am missing here. I realize that my conclusions are only based on the information I have at this time, so give me some information or perspective that I may be missing if you can.
- The topic ‘How are Decisions Made at the Top in Christ’s Church?’ is closed to new replies.