Black LDS Official on Priesthood Ban

[Indy Coug]

While I appreciate the time you took to type that, I think that's a very poor analogy.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

While I appreciate the time you took to type that, I think that's a very poor analogy.

Why?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Was I complicit in his continued smoking? Or did I just recognize that other things needed to happen within him before his body was in a position to cut off the nicotine completely?

Oh come now, SoCal. Certainly you can do better than that. Just for fun:

Let's say you are the CEO of a major corporation. You have a senior VP on your executive team who constantly makes racist comments. He makes them to you in private, to his colleagues (some of whom are black), and to his subordinates. He also discriminates in his hiring and compensation practices.

Occasionally he asks you if you're okay with his comments. He even asks you if he should stop making them, or if he should change. You tell him no, to go right ahead as usual.

Were you complicit in his racism?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Oh come now, SoCal. Certainly you can do better than that. Just for fun:

Let's say you are the CEO of a major corporation. You have a senior VP on your executive team who constantly makes racist comments. He makes them to you in private, to his colleagues (some of whom are black), and to his subordinates. He also discriminates in his hiring and compensation practices.

Occasionally he asks you if you're okay with his comments. He even asks you if he should stop making them, or if he should change. You tell him no, to go right ahead as usual.

Were you complicit in his racism?

Yes. Are you saying God's our CEO?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Adam

According to the DOM book, the Church Architect says that DOM told him one day that had been praying about lifting the ban on blacks and that God told him it wasn't going to happen in his lifetime.

This is the only evidence that "God was compicit in continuing it for multiple decades."

If the chruch architect told the truth and DOM told the chruch architect the full story, then Tex is right.

It is amazing the Tex camp of church defenders always bash those of us who question regarding the second hand nature of our sources, yet turn to such sources themselves when convenient.

BTW, I tend to believe that the chruch architect was making it up or getting it wrong.

This account is further contradicted by the fact that late in his presidency, there is strong evidence that DOM came to believe that the ban was policy and not doctrine, thereby not requiring a revelation to overturn.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Yes. Are you saying God's our CEO?

For the purposes of this analogy, yes.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

For the purposes of this analogy, yes.

I answered "Yes."

You don't really intend to address my analogy, do you?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Let's say I have a friend who was a smoker for 20 years. He becomes interested in joining the church, and I participate in the lessons with the missionaries. We discuss the word of wisdom with him, and he learns that it is a commandment not to smoke. He asks me to help him quit smoking.

Do I tell him, "Okay, stop smoking now"? He's addicted and it's very difficult to quit, of course. So I tell him he's not likely to stop overnight, but I would help him to reduce his smoking gradually, and support him in that, until several weeks or months later, he's in a position to stop smoking entirely, thus bringing himself in compliance with the word of wisdom.

Was I complicit in his continued smoking? Or did I just recognize that other things needed to happen within him before his body was in a position to cut off the nicotine completely?

I find this analogy pretty reasonable.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

This account is further contradicted by the fact that late in his presidency, there is strong evidence that DOM came to believe that the ban was policy and not doctrine, thereby not requiring a revelation to overturn.

Which evidence are you refering to? And why would a policy not still be set by revelation?

I understand this distinction some folks like to draw between "doctrine" and "policy" such that "doctrine" is supposedly unchangeable, while "policy" is not. But I think it's a poor distinction.

The Perpetual Education Fund is not doctrine, but I guarantee it was given by revelation. "Thou shalt not kill" is doctrine, but has all kinds of little asterisks when it comes to application.

I don't know how anyone can read that 4th chapter in DOM, and come away thinking that any of the prophets or prophets-to-be mentioned therein thought anything other than a revelation was required.

[Indy Coug]

I changed my mind: as I look back at how the Savior gradually phased in the Higher Law to replace the Mosaic Law, I can see the merit to SoCalCoug's analogy.