mormonism racist?

[Autodidact]

Yes, if nothing else we see that no matter who you are, no matter how devout, no matter if you are currently the best Mormon on the planet, either God is racist or you efforts to get direction from God are prone to an extremely high error rate. Specifically, apparently 99% of the prophets and his men were mistaken, until 1978 when one of them finally "got it right." That's like a 99% error rate. Apparently the First Presidency can't even be relied on to tell what is and is not doctrine. Pretty sloppy.

 

[Apex]

Yes, if nothing else we see that no matter who you are, no matter how devout, no matter if you are currently the best Mormon on the planet, either God is racist or you efforts to get direction from God are prone to an extremely high error rate. Specifically, apparently 99% of the prophets and his men were mistaken, until 1978 when one of them finally "got it right." That's like a 99% error rate. Apparently the First Presidency can't even be relied on to tell what is and is not doctrine. Pretty sloppy.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, if nothing else we see that no matter who you are, no matter how devout, no matter if you are currently the best Mormon on the planet, either God is racist or you efforts to get direction from God are prone to an extremely high error rate. Specifically, apparently 99% of the prophets and his men were mistaken, until 1978 when one of them finally "got it right." That's like a 99% error rate. Apparently the First Presidency can't even be relied on to tell what is and is not doctrine. Pretty sloppy.

It wasn't until "one of them got it right." If you read the official declaration, you'd see this is something that Church leadership had been praying about for years. Finally, the answer came.

Oh - and it was never in the canon. You'll never defeat that argument.

 

[Autodidact]

It wasn't until "one of them got it right." If you read the official declaration, you'd see this is something that Church leadership had been praying about for years. Finally, the answer came.

Oh - and it was never in the canon. You'll never defeat that argument.

What argument? For what? Who's saying it is? That's not the point. Here's the point, and it's not complicated:

You rely on ongoing divine revelation to tell you what God wants. Apparently, for whatever reason, that's extremely unreliable, right? So how can you continue to rely on it?

"One of them" refers to a single prophet. Every prophet before him is wrong. Now one is right. Looks like the prophets have a lousy track record. What other conclusion can you draw?

 

[Watchmen]

What argument? For what? Who's saying it is? That's not the point. Here's the point, and it's not complicated:

You rely on ongoing divine revelation to tell you what God wants. Apparently, for whatever reason, that's extremely unreliable, right? So how can you continue to rely on it?

"One of them" refers to a single prophet. Every prophet before him is wrong. Now one is right. Looks like the prophets have a lousy track record. What other conclusion can you draw?

Divine revelation is reliable, whether you understand that or not.

"One of them" refers to a single prophet, but you're wrong in your assertion that he was the only one in LDS leadership addressing the issue. Previous prophets were likely seeking guidance from God and God choose to give His answer when he did.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So Watchmen are you saying God supported the policy on blacks and the priesthood until 1978?
Would it have been disobedient to God to reverse the ban before a supposed revelation had been received?

 

[Autodidact]

Divine revelation is reliable, whether you understand that or not.

You're right. I DON'T UNDERSTAND how Mormons in this thread are telling me that 130 years of Mormon leadership that relied on divine revelation was wrong, but it's reliable. Maybe you can reconcile that for me.

"One of them" refers to a single prophet, but you're wrong in your assertion that he was the only one in LDS leadership addressing the issue. Previous prophets were likely seeking guidance from God and God choose to give His answer when he did.

I didn't assert any such thing. What's I'm saying is, the ten prophets before Spencer Kimball were all wrong, right? That's a lousy track record--ten wrong in a row. How can you call that reliable?

 

[Watchmen]

So Watchmen are you saying God supported the policy on blacks and the priesthood until 1978?
Would it have been disobedient to God to reverse the ban before a supposed revelation had been received?

Nope - it's not doctrine.

 

[Autodidact]

Nope - it's not doctrine.

That's not what he asked. Here's how to tell. If someone wants to know if something is doctrine, they will ask, "Is it doctrine?" On the other hand, if they want to know whether it would have been disobedient to grant priesthood to a Black man before 1978, they will as the question Mr Spinkles asked.

 

[Watchmen]

i need to look before i leap

can i have a mulligan

can you show me where there was a "revelation" that black men not receive the priesthood?

 

[Autodidact]

We're starting to go round in circles here. Let's simplify. For 130 years, the leaders of the Mormon church repeatedly said, in every context, every time, that it was God's will that Black men not receive priesthood. Were they right or wrong?

 

[Watchmen]

We're starting to go round in circles here. Let's simplify. For 130 years, the leaders of the Mormon church repeatedly said, in every context, every time, that it was God's will that Black men not receive priesthood. Were they right or wrong?

nonresponsive.

do you have a revelation or not?

 

[Autodidact]

nonresponsive.

do you have a revelation or not?

Of course not, there's no such thing. What you have is Brigham Young claiming to have a revelation. Mormons here deny that it really was a revelation. And what I say is, if you can't trust your prophet when he says he speaks as a prophet, what can you trust them for? That's how we got into people saying they had their own revelations, so they didn't need to rely on the prophets.

So, I guess if you want to say the previous prophets, going back to Brigham Young, were not speaking from revelation, then you've got some other problems. Like, were they liars, or just really mistaken?

Brigham Young says he speaks as a prophet in the name of Jesus Christ. Every church utterance afterward confirms and is consistent with that, and traces it to doctrine. (the curse of Ham.) The First Presidency says that it is and has been doctrine.

So, was Brigham Young mistaken or lying? Was every prophet since mistaken? Was the church leadership for 130 years mistaken? Was the First Presidency mistaken? Is the group that you believe is charged by God with responsibility for administering his church on earth doing it wrong? You tell me.

 

[Watchmen]

It's not that hard. You claim revelation is unreliable. Show me where the revelation is.

 

[Autodidact]

Is revelation unreliable, or is the Mormon leadership unreliable when they claim to have revelation? I'm sure I don't know. So you tell me.

Brigham Young says he had a revelation. (already in this thread about 5 times.) So, did he not have one, and lie, or did he have one, and it's unreliable?

What I claim is, either revelation is unreliable, or the entire leadership of your Church was lying or mistaken for 130 years. I'm sure I don't know which, so why don't you tell me? Unless you can think of some other possibility?

 

[Sola'lor]

Why does the "priesthgood ban" have to be a mistake?

 

[Watchmen]

Is revelation unreliable, or is the Mormon leadership unreliable when they claim to have revelation? I'm sure I don't know. So you tell me.

Brigham Young says he had a revelation. (already in this thread about 5 times.) So, did he not have one, and lie, or did he have one, and it's unreliable?

What I claim is, either revelation is unreliable, or the entire leadership of your Church was lying or mistaken for 130 years. I'm sure I don't know which, so why don't you tell me? Unless you can think of some other possibility?

can you repost the revelation for my benefit?

last paragraph = either/or fallacy

 

[Autodidact]

Why does the "priesthgood ban" have to be a mistake?

Do you think it's a mistake? Or was it correct?

 

[Autodidact]

can you repost the revelation for my benefit?

[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]... any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ...
Brigham Young, 1852 [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]In the final analysis, three principle factors sustained the priesthood [p.209]ban in the twentieth century. In order of descending relevance, these were the authority of decades of vigorous and unwavering First Presidency endorsement of the policy; a preconceived and highly literalistic reading of several verses in the Pearl of Great Price; and an ambient culture which was indifferent to, if not supportive of, Mormon attitudes toward blacks. As formidable as these factors were, they were not the only influences at work.[/FONT]

Lester Bush

Every original source you could ever want is here.

last paragraph = either/or fallacy[/quote] What are the other options?

The ban is correct?

If the ban is incorrect, and, as we see from Bush, the church iterated and re-iterated it vehemently and consistently, at every level all the way up to the prophet, for 130 years, then either the church leaders were mistaken or they were lying.

Do you have another alternative?

 

[Sola'lor]

Do you think it's a mistake? Or was it correct?

With my current understanding, I think it was what God wanted His prophets to do at the time. And when the ban was lifted it was what God wanted at that time.