My fondest hope for Monson's presidency

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Stop taking cheapshots against GBH.

I leave the cheapshots to Adam. I'm waiting for his next conspiracy theory on why President Hunter died so quickly after taking office. Maybe he was a fellow conspirator with President Lee.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is that instead of putting all the guilt trips on the men, that he will start to put guilt trips on the women.

"Have you considered that the porn problem in the church is because of the frigid ways of many of you sisters?"

"Do you know how disappointing it is for a husband to come home from work to a dirty house, snotty kids, and a microwaved meal?"

This would be a good start.

I agree, but it will never happen. Get ready for more "Quit the porn and help out more around the house."

Frankly, I'm waiting for further instruction, so I figure it's the rest of you that haven't complied yet.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

It is what it is and you can't hide the history anymore. The EQP and I went to visit two new move-ins in our ward this week. One of the guys is an RM totally inactive for many years because he felt lied to about Joseph Smith and polygamy. He had an uncle leave the church and when he returned from his mission he tried to reactivate the uncle and the uncle gave him Compton and he ended up leaving himself.

This happens every day in the Church. Sometimes it is polygamy. Sometimes it is racism. Sometimes it is sexism. Sometimes it is violence in our history.

Indy, the above is a cheap shot. You believe that God would remove out of his place any man who would lead the Church astray. That is doctrine you embrace and believe from the quotes after the Manifesto in the current version of the DC. You believe God will strike down a prophet who would lead the church astray.

It is a fact that HBLee opposed giving blacks the priesthood--reported in many sources by many people. He daughter even said that he told her that blacks would never get the priesthood as long as he lived. I have provided many quotes on this point to you before.

It is a fact that HBLee served a very short time as President of the Chruch and everyone, including his family and closest advisers, were shocked and stunned at his unexpected death. I have provided the quotes from his bio by his son-in-law on this point previously.

It is also a fact that shortly after his death, well within the time that he would have been expected to live and lead the church, SWK lead the apostles to the decision to give the blacks the priesthood. A revelation confirmed the decision (that is the actual wording of the second manifesto).

So you line up those facts and want to stick your head in the sand, fine. It is your doctrine and your church as well as mine. Don't learn from history, repeat the mistakes. Those around you will suffer. On your head it will be, not mine. Good luck.

I missed the part about President Hunter.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Adam

It is what it is and you can't hide the history anymore. The EQP and I went to visit two new move-ins in our ward this week. One of the guys is an RM totally inactive for many years because he felt lied to about Joseph Smith and polygamy. He had an uncle leave the church and when he returned from his mission he tried to reactivate the uncle and the uncle gave him Compton and he ended up leaving himself.

This happens every day in the Church. Sometimes it is polygamy. Sometimes it is racism. Sometimes it is sexism. Sometimes it is violence in our history.

Indy, the above is a cheap shot. You believe that God would remove out of his place any man who would lead the Church astray. That is doctrine you embrace and believe from the quotes after the Manifesto in the current version of the DC. You believe God will strike down a prophet who would lead the church astray.

It is a fact that HBLee opposed giving blacks the priesthood--reported in many sources by many people. He daughter even said that he told her that blacks would never get the priesthood as long as he lived. I have provided many quotes on this point to you before.

It is a fact that HBLee served a very short time as President of the Chruch and everyone, including his family and closest advisers, were shocked and stunned at his unexpected death. I have provided the quotes from his bio by his son-in-law on this point previously.

It is also a fact that shortly after his death, well within the time that he would have been expected to live and lead the church, SWK lead the apostles to the decision to give the blacks the priesthood. A revelation confirmed the decision (that is the actual wording of the second manifesto).

So you line up those facts and want to stick your head in the sand, fine. It is your doctrine and your church as well as mine. Don't learn from history, repeat the mistakes. Those around you will suffer. On your head it will be, not mine. Good luck.

Is it just me, or does this post lack any sort of semblance to logic in any way whatsoever?

[Spaz]

Out of curiosity...

Originally Posted by Adam

It is what it is and you can't hide the history anymore. The EQP and I went to visit two new move-ins in our ward this week. One of the guys is an RM totally inactive for many years because he felt lied to about Joseph Smith and polygamy. He had an uncle leave the church and when he returned from his mission he tried to reactivate the uncle and the uncle gave him Compton and he ended up leaving himself.

-Are you claiming here that these inactive folks are inactive because of a mistake made by the church? Or, like most sane LDS people, do you accept the fact that Satan is trying damn hard to get his hooks into people in any way he can, and this was probably the hook for these two individuals?

Originally Posted by Adam

Indy, the above is a cheap shot. You believe that God would remove out of his place any man who would lead the Church astray. That is doctrine you embrace and believe from the quotes after the Manifesto in the current version of the DC. You believe God will strike down a prophet who would lead the church astray.

It is a fact that HBLee opposed giving blacks the priesthood--reported in many sources by many people. He daughter even said that he told her that blacks would never get the priesthood as long as he lived. I have provided many quotes on this point to you before.

It is a fact that HBLee served a very short time as President of the Chruch and everyone, including his family and closest advisers, were shocked and stunned at his unexpected death. I have provided the quotes from his bio by his son-in-law on this point previously.

It is also a fact that shortly after his death, well within the time that he would have been expected to live and lead the church, SWK lead the apostles to the decision to give the blacks the priesthood. A revelation confirmed the decision (that is the actual wording of the second manifesto).

So you line up those facts and want to stick your head in the sand, fine. It is your doctrine and your church as well as mine. Don't learn from history, repeat the mistakes. Those around you will suffer. On your head it will be, not mine. Good luck.

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this. Is it your contention that HBLee was removed as the prophet because of his inability to accept the Lord's directions concerning blacks receiving the priesthood? If so, that seems rather plausible to me, but it certainly isn't your place (or mine) to make that distinction.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Spaz

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this. Is it your contention that HBLee was removed as the prophet because of his inability to accept the Lord's directions concerning blacks receiving the priesthood? If so, that seems rather plausible to me, but it certainly isn't your place (or mine) to make that distinction.

Adam puts this forth as if it's established fact.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Out of curiosity...



-Are you claiming here that these inactive folks are inactive because of a mistake made by the church? Or, like most sane LDS people, do you accept the fact that Satan is trying damn hard to get his hooks into people in any way he can, and this was probably the hook for these two individuals?

I believe he is saying that we could probably do a better job of informing our own members about our history such that when they are confronted with this sort of material, it is not a harrowing experience that causes them to lose their faith.

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this. Is it your contention that HBLee was removed as the prophet because of his inability to accept the Lord's directions concerning blacks receiving the priesthood? If so, that seems rather plausible to me, but it certainly isn't your place (or mine) to make that distinction.

As a matter of fact, he didn't make that distinction. He listed some facts and allowed you to do what you would with them.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by All-American

I believe he is saying that we could probably do a better job of informing our own members about our history such that when they are confronted with this sort of material, it is not a harrowing experience that causes them to lose their faith.


As a matter of fact, he didn't make that distinction. He listed some facts and allowed you to do what you would with them.

Forgive me (both you and Indy), but I'd actually like Adam to answer the questions I posed to him, rather than your interpretation thereof...

I'm certainly not trying to be accusatory. I actually want to know the logic behind the post, and what he's actually trying to say (since he didn't make it all that clear).

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Adam

Both. Satan looks for places to put his hooks (to continue your analogy), by lying about our history, hiding our history, twisting our history, we give great openings to Satan wherein to put his hooks. Honestly tackling our history, which is starting to happen with Bushman and Prince and Compton and Hardy and Quinn building on what Arrington and Alexander started in the 80s and 90s, is the right way to go.

The church has gone from fighting honest history (firing Arrington as church historian and making it a GA position) to allowing it (Bushman's book was sold by Deseret Book, but they wouldn't publish it). The next step is to embrace it. I look forward to that day.



I think it is mainstream Mormon doctrine to believe Wilford Woodruff's statements excerpted after the Manifesto in the DC regarding God taking a prophet who is leading the church astray. I think it is unquestionable that HBLee was a racist (as were most white men born in America around the turn of the century) and he refused to consider the question/ask god about giving blacks the priesthood. I think it is undeniable that HBLee was taken long before his normal lifespan and health should have carried him. I think it is a fact that SWK gave blacks the priesthood shortly thereafter.

You are uncomfortable with the obvious "therefore" statement that follows these facts. You say it isn't our place to use our heads and say "therefore".

I understand and accept that most Mormons agree with you. I do not.

It is an interesting theology that says man has no right to use their god-given agency to determine for themselves if their leader is right on a given policy/doctrinal point. To quote a great modern poet: "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill." (Extra credit to the person that can name to poet without using Google.)

If one determines the leader is wrong, a second separate step is to determine if you should follow that leader anyway.

I have no problem saying HBLee was wrong on blacks and the priesthood. I might have stayed in the church anyway because the church, even with significant flaws, is the repository of the keys of baptism through sealing and I want to partake, and have my family partake, of those ordinances.

For the record: HBL was born in 1899 and died in 1973. The revelation on the priesthood was given in 1978.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Forgive me (both you and Indy), but I'd actually like Adam to answer the questions I posed to him, rather than your interpretation thereof...

I'm certainly not trying to be accusatory. I actually want to know the logic behind the post, and what he's actually trying to say (since he didn't make it all that clear).

Fair enough.