Shortcomings in living prophets?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by hyrum

Well I have changed churches, so I guess you have to ask which one. The one now has fairly autonomous leadership, so I would have to ask a really old timer. I was raised Catholic and, generally the Catholic Church is ahead of the curve on social issues, though I don't know, specifically on that bill. JFK, a Catholic, started the ball rolling, for what its worth.

That is not the point, however. The LDS church claims to have a direct line to God. I belong to a church that is run by group of elders (all of them significantly more than 19 years old) that does not make such claims. So not even prodding by the example of law in their home country was even enough to open that line to the correct answer for 14 years. If there was truly a direct line to God I think they should have a had a leadership role in getting such measures passed, rather than lagging by half a generation.

So what church do you belong to? It seems fair that if you are going to honestly criticize the LDS Church, you should allow others to return the favor.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by hyrum

Well I have changed churches, so I guess you have to ask which one. The one now has fairly autonomous leadership, so I would have to ask a really old timer. I was raised Catholic and, generally the Catholic Church is ahead of the curve on social issues, though I don't know, specifically on that bill. JFK, a Catholic, started the ball rolling, for what its worth.

That is not the point, however. The LDS church claims to have a direct line to God. I belong to a church that is run by group of elders (all of them significantly more than 19 years old) that does not make such claims. So not even prodding by the example of law in their home country was even enough to open that line to the correct answer for 14 years. If there was truly a direct line to God I think they should have a had a leadership role in getting such measures passed, rather than lagging by half a generation.

Catholics are ahead of the curve? Roman Catholics?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

"Above" the prophets? As in, I trust my judgement to be more reliable than his?

I don't see that sentiment being expressed here by anybody who still raises their hand to the square every April and October. I see the not-so-radical idea that they are, in fact, mortal men and can be prone to error, and the prophetic advocation to confirm the words of the prophet with revelation from God that may or may not stem from their fallability. I don't see anybody who believes that they are prophets and nevertheless don't take their message seriously.

That's not arrogance. That's disbelief-- which they are entitled to.

Spin it however you choose.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Spin it however you choose.

Look, here's the deal. Blacks were denied the priesthood for many years. We don't know if it's because God chose to do so, or if the prophets had racist tendencies. I think enough evidence has been shown by those who believe the former that such a move would not have been unprecedented, so you can't completely rule it out; nevertheless, I don't see why you can't at least accept that others might think the latter theory holds more water. Maybe neither theory works, and it was for some third reason we haven't thought of yet.

The point is this: what you are referring to as arrogance, stubbornness, blindness, et cetera, appears to me to be nothing more than the result of people trying to find answers to difficult questions. Sometimes we get full of ourselves, it is true; I don't believe that to be the case in this instance. We should at least feel safe to ask questions.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

Look, here's the deal. Blacks were denied the priesthood for many years. We don't know if it's because God chose to do so, or if the prophets had racist tendencies. I think enough evidence has been shown by those who believe the former that such a move would not have been unprecedented, so you can't completely rule it out; nevertheless, I don't see why you can't at least accept that others might think the latter theory holds more water. Maybe neither theory works, and it was for some third reason we haven't thought of yet.

The point is this: what you are referring to as arrogance, stubbornness, blindness, et cetera, appears to me to be nothing more than the result of people trying to find answers to difficult questions. Sometimes we get full of ourselves, it is true; I don't believe that to be the case in this instance. We should at least feel safe to ask questions.

I didn't know this particular thread was about Blacks and the Priesthood as that topic is being covered in another thread.

In regards to your 2nd paragraph...like I said, you're choosing to spin it however you wish and that's certainly your prereogative. I will say without apology or refrain that almost daily there are individuals on here who malign, mock, and speak with almost outright contempt towards the opinions, thoughts and the doctrine brought forth and spoken of by church leaders, whether they be present or past...and those people often act shamefully in my opinion. There is a hearty difference between asking a question, and then doing so with utter contempt, in the attempt to shout down what's been presented as opposed to humbling one self and make a REAL search for truth. Arrogance and intellectualism stunt faith growing opportunties.

AA, I like you, but you and I just simply are not going to agree here. You're certainly more trusting of many of these individuals motives than I am, which is commendable. Naive, but commendable.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think Lingo's (unintentionally) hit on the disconnect here.

Today, I think we're more enlightened about race issues, and I think anyone in our present culture who is racist is ignorant or simply evil (i.e., skinheads).

Calling someone living in our society today a "racist" is the equivalent of calling them morally corrupt.

Calling someone living in 1940's and 1950's Utah a "racist" is more a statement of fact than anything. It's not meant in a pejorative way. Much of the culture of white America in those times had racist views toward blacks.

When we say the church hierarchy in that time was racist, it's just an indication that they were consistent with their culture and time. We're not saying that they were evil or even sinning in their thoughts. That was just a mindset of much of white America, particularly in Utah, where there were very few black people at all at that time.

Exactly so.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I will say without apology or refrain that almost daily there are individuals on here who malign, mock, and speak with almost outright contempt towards the opinions, thoughts and the doctrine brought forth and spoken of by church leaders, whether they be present or past...and those people often act shamefully in my opinion. There is a hearty difference between asking a question, and then doing so with utter contempt, in the attempt to shout down what's been presented as opposed to humbling one self and make a REAL search for truth. Arrogance and intellectualism stunt faith growing opportunties.

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I haven't seen a lot of "mocking," "maligning" or "contempt" toward present or past church leaders. Are you sure you're not reading more into the comments than is intended?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Could the problem be that you assume that a "REAL search for truth" requires agreeing with you, and that you presumably have found the truth already?

There is a wide spectrum of possibilities on this issue, and it is certainly possible that none of us will ever know the "truth" on the issue in our lifetimes.

Coming from one of the worst and disingenous spinmeisters on the board I find your comments laughably ironic. You dislike my pointing out your constant & deliberate mis-direction, but that's your problem. Because of the way you choose to engage in dishonest debate you don't deserve and have not earned the trust that is required for one to be a real seeker of truth. But you are who you are.

If you ever just once came across as being genuine instead of always distorting and maiming the viewpoints of others, many times with verbal diarrhea towards the church, then I might actually respect what you have to say. Your viewpoint is always right over church prophets, apostles and leaders. My personal opinion is you should find a church that is more consistent with your "values" because your constant clashes with them is something that doesn't fit your thought processes and you're only delaying your inevitable and prideful departure from the church. Quite frankly I feel bad for you.

You've ripped on church prophets, apostles, doctrines and opinions many times. You've been a notorious offender of that many times. Of course...all under the guise of "searching for truth" I'm sure.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I haven't seen a lot of "mocking," "maligning" or "contempt" toward present or past church leaders. Are you sure you're not reading more into the comments than is intended?

Nope. I call it how I see it.

[DrumNFeather]

Elder Eyring apparently doesn't like sports...wait a sec...that could be a good thing.