I was sort of baffled by the black guy that quoted John Taylor

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is appears to be a simplistic view of life, but if it rests well with you, that's fine.

A more empirical view would be to sythesize what historically religions have taught, analyze what scholars believe and observe, employ various methodology to discover whether God exists and communicates. If he didn't exist, it wouldn't matter what we did.

If he does, then we should follow a method of discovering truth.

Many, many religious societies engage rituals for teaching truths, so either societies have had it wrong all along, or maybe, just maybe they are significant. To dismiss them out of hand, sure seems sloppy.

It's basically saying, well nothing really matters, God will accept everything.

I wouldn't say God will accept everything. I think he knows your heart, desires, and capabilities. I think it is more like if you have two kids give you a gift. The one child is 4 year old and draws you a picture. It's obviously a crappy drawing, but you appreciate that he did his best and he loves you. You are not going to reject that gift. Your other child is 16, has a job and knows what you like. He buys you some cool cycling accessory. This is a better gift by far, but you still accept the drawing and love your 4 year old. Despite what we would like to think, most of us are the 4 year old in this story. This is not an excuse not to study or seek knowledge. Those are good things. I just don't see the value in uprooting someone from their current beliefs they are happy in. They are just as pure in heart in offering their gifts to God as Mormons are. God is one cruel bastard if he rejects their honest intentions and desires.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I wouldn't say God will accept everything. I think he knows your heart, desires, and capabilities. I think it is more like if you have two kids give you a gift. The one child is 4 year old and draws you a picture. It's obviously a crappy drawing, but you appreciate that he did his best and he loves you. You are not going to reject that gift. Your other child is 16, has a job and knows what you like. He buys you some cool cycling accessory. This is a better gift by far, but you still accept the drawing and love your 4 year old. Despite what we would like to think, most of us are the 4 year old in this story. This is not an excuse not to study or seek knowledge. Those are good things. I just don't see the value in uprooting someone from their current beliefs they are happy in. They are just as pure in heart in offering their gifts to God as Mormons are. God is one cruel bastard if he rejects their honest intentions and desires.

We are zygotes to God's Nobel prize status in everything. But he doesn't reject the gift, just requires that in time we progress to embryo, fetus and there beyond. Failure to go through the stages makes us refuse. And perhaps cruelty is part of the equation. Look at the suffering in the world, so he's no stranger to cruelty.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We are zygotes to God's Nobel prize status in everything. But he doesn't reject the gift, just requires that in time we progress to embryo, fetus and there beyond. Failure to go through the stages makes us refuse. And perhaps cruelty is part of the equation. Look at the suffering in the world, so he's no stranger to cruelty.

I hope that's not the case. If it is true that God is cruel, I'll be happy to be thrown out with the rest of the trash rather than be a part in cruelty.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I hope that's not the case. If it is true that God is cruel, I'll be happy to be thrown out with the rest of the trash rather than be a part in cruelty.

The cruelest part will be you grow up to be Ute, and need to inspect Majerus's two inch rule for eternity.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Was the church "true" when they denied the blacks the priesthood? I would submit that it wasn't true if you are black.

Was it true if you were white?

If the church was being run by a bunch of racists, how 'true' could the church really have been?

Seems there is little congruency between how the church was, and how I know Jesus to be. Which begs the question, in my mind at least, are the heavens and our church leadership really, at times, that far apart?

GBH today has strong words for racists, and if we are to accept him as the mouthpiece of God, why wasn't God using his mouthpiece to say the things he said recently 50 years ago?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't understand Tex's approach.

Nobody is saying belief in Gospel principles doesn't ultimately require leaps of faith and spiritual witnesses. Without which, there is no faith.

However, Tex's approach appears to be, no question should be answered and the evangelical approach of crying and shouting "I Believe!" is all that is necessary.

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I said I could see where it would work for some types of folks. *Tex goes back and checks.* Yep, that's what I said.

Originally Posted by Archaea

And Tex doesn't appear to be very familiar with persons of color who might view the past racist views of leaders with a different light than he who was never excluded from full blessings and participation. It is interesting that one never cut off, can easily dismiss the misgivings of somebody struggling to reach the light.

Riiiight. Because if I don't agree with you, then I've never met a black person before. Obviously if I knew black people, my view would be different.

Originally Posted by Archaea

There will become stopping points where one must choose to believe, choose not to believe, or choose to suspend determination pending further information.

In fact, those who do not look for rational arguments are likely to fall harder and faster, than those who simply live by a euphoric rush of Pentacostal emotion.

I don't think I said anything that could be seen as endorsing a "rush of Pentacostal emotion." The process of conversion is for better or worse typically longer and more complicated than that.

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Was it true if you were white?

If the church was being run by a bunch of racists, how 'true' could the church really have been?

Seems there is little congruency between how the church was, and how I know Jesus to be. Which begs the question, in my mind at least, are the heavens and our church leadership really, at times, that far apart?

GBH today has strong words for racists, and if we are to accept him as the mouthpiece of God, why wasn't God using his mouthpiece to say the things he said recently 50 years ago?

Maybe I am oversimplifying here, but I think that one of the reasons our church survived and continues to survive is because the membership doesn't hang its collective testimony on the infalibility of the leadership.

I think it is a time period issue and not a personality issue. Try as we may, we cannot apply today's standards and knowledge to people who lived in a different era. We can certainly look our noses down on church leaders of old and call them racists, but what good comes from that? who benefits? Does the "injustice" done go away if we conceed that Brigham Young was a racist?

We live in a different world now, a world that is far more accepting of all kinds of people. That doesn't make Hinckley a better prophet or even a more qualified prophet, it just means that he is the prophet for our time, much like Young was the prophet for his time and so on and so forth.

I suspect that Tom Monson, Boyd Packer, L. Tom Perry and Dieter F. Uchdorf would all run the church a little differently than President Hinckley would. Each of course would still be acting as the mouth piece of the lord, but each would not have to be a carbon copy of some "ideal" prophet that only exists in thought and not reality.

The lord uses his prophets differently to reflect the specific time in the history of the world, and just because those particular men are at times reflections of the culture of that time, doesn't make them any less qualified to be prophets and it certainly doesn't make them any less worthy to be a prophet...it makes them human. In some ways, to know that we have someone at the head of our church who is able to make mistakes and has made mistakes, makes the task of doing all we can seem less daunting.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Was it true if you were white?

If the church was being run by a bunch of racists, how 'true' could the church really have been?

Seems there is little congruency between how the church was, and how I know Jesus to be. Which begs the question, in my mind at least, are the heavens and our church leadership really, at times, that far apart?

GBH today has strong words for racists, and if we are to accept him as the mouthpiece of God, why wasn't God using his mouthpiece to say the things he said recently 50 years ago?

Maybe God really did intend to withhold the priesthood from blacks until 1978, a couple of very early exceptions in the 1830s/1840s notwithstanding. God didn't want the Gospel preached unto the Gentiles until after the death of Christ...

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

Maybe I am oversimplifying here, but I think that one of the reasons our church survived and continues to survive is because the membership doesn't hang its collective testimony on the infalibility of the leadership.

I think it is a time period issue and not a personality issue. Try as we may, we cannot apply today's standards and knowledge to people who lived in a different era. We can certainly look our noses down on church leaders of old and call them racists, but what good comes from that? who benefits? Does the "injustice" done go away if we conceed that Brigham Young was a racist?

We live in a different world now, a world that is far more accepting of all kinds of people. That doesn't make Hinckley a better prophet or even a more qualified prophet, it just means that he is the prophet for our time, much like Young was the prophet for his time and so on and so forth.

I suspect that Tom Monson, Boyd Packer, L. Tom Perry and Dieter F. Uchdorf would all run the church a little differently than President Hinckley would. Each of course would still be acting as the mouth piece of the lord, but each would not have to be a carbon copy of some "ideal" prophet that only exists in thought and not reality.

The lord uses his prophets differently to reflect the specific time in the history of the world, and just because those particular men are at times reflections of the culture of that time, doesn't make them any less qualified to be prophets and it certainly doesn't make them any less worthy to be a prophet...it makes them human. In some ways, to know that we have someone at the head of our church who is able to make mistakes and has made mistakes, makes the task of doing all we can seem less daunting.

Good reply. Fusnik would benefit from reading the Mauss article linked earlier in the thread. As is always true, our leaders of old were products of their time, and that was a time when people believed the black race was inferior. This is not an excuse, it is just a fact. Just a Joseph Smith brought many of his own assumption and thoughts to running the church, and just as many of them were corrected or modified over time as he learned more and recieved more, so too the church as a whole and its leadership brought certain beliefs to the table.

I don't personally believe that the priesthood was witheld because God intended it, though I do believe that He made the correction once the church was ready to recieve it. There is room for disagreement here. But I agree with you that we can't go back in time and impute knowledge to people 150 years ago that is obvious to us now. A 19th century person would have had a host of beliefs that we would scratch our heads over.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Was it true if you were white?

If the church was being run by a bunch of racists, how 'true' could the church really have been?

Seems there is little congruency between how the church was, and how I know Jesus to be. Which begs the question, in my mind at least, are the heavens and our church leadership really, at times, that far apart?

GBH today has strong words for racists, and if we are to accept him as the mouthpiece of God, why wasn't God using his mouthpiece to say the things he said recently 50 years ago?

God uses racists, liars, murderers, adulterers, selfish, prideful, egotistical, war-mongering men to lead his church because that's all he's got to work with in this world.