you TBMs: do the Prophets ever actually speak as a prophet?

[_guy sajer]

On a more serious note, what about ending the racial purity ban? That seemed rather godly.

it is my understanding the 1978 revelation to remove the race restriction was a painful, long process. it was discussed and passed over many times during at least a 20 year time frame(I will review Quinn's EOP later).

my only point being it took Joseph all of 35 seconds to make up his mind when god wanted him to do something - why the 20 year process for the Priesthood ban lift ??

the 78' edict was good even goodly, but inserting god into that one is a stretch in my opinion.

Yes, one wonders why it took apparently two decades for God to declare to Peter that the Gospel was to go to the Gentiles, and then one wonders why Peter was declared a "false brother" by Paul (Gal. 2) for not acting pursuant to that mandate.

rcrocket

Uhh, because the New Testament is a work of historical fiction?

Come to that, so is any claim that God speaks to Mormon prophets.

Why not call a spade a spade? Important Mormon leaders were racists who confused their own narrowminded biggotry for God's will.

[_rcrocket]

Uhh, because the New Testament is a work of historical fiction?

Come to that, so is any claim that God speaks to Mormon prophets.

Why not call a spade a spade? Important Mormon leaders were racists who confused their own narrowminded biggotry for God's will.

Hmm. Let's see. You are still a member of the Church, you haven't resigned, you admit Church visitors to your home, and you on occasion attend. [Not to mention the fact that for years you took a paycheck from BYU.] Am I right? Please disabuse me if I am not.

I'll tell you, if I thought the Rosicrucian Society was a bunch of hooey, you wouldn't see me lending my person to its credibility.


I could be mistaken, but I think the word is "bigotry."


rcrocket

[_Sethbag]

First no other religions of which I am aware had such a ban to start with, and seems most of the rest of the modern world had long since decided segregation and discrimination was a horrible thing. Pretty much all the peoples in developed nations saw what the prophets could not accept...

The SBC was started in the 19th century primarily because of disputes and concerns over blacks, slavery and the justification of treating blacks as lesser humans. Southern Baptists argues that slavery and the way blacks were treated was biblical. The ideas that blacks were of the race of Cain and cursed was another theme they had as well as other Protestant faiths of the day.

Good for the SBC, yet another church whose creeds were an abomination before the Lord. What does that actually demonstrate? That a false church, not of God, and devoid of divine revelation and a divine mandate from God can believe and practice abhorrent things? Ok, great. Is this comparison supposed to actually help out the LDS church, whose creed, if you will, LDS do not think is an abomination in God's sight, and which claims divine revelation and a mandate from God to be his kingdom on earth?

[_Sethbag]

No, Crockett, you don't get to play the bigot card. Believing that the New Testament isn't literally true does not make one a bigot. Neither does believing that the LDS church is manmade, and likewise not literally true.

Are you, Bob Crockett, a bigot for believing that Jehovah's Witnesses are not literally in possession of The Truth about God? Are you a bigot for believing the Roman Catholic Church isn't really "true"?

Believing that the LDS church isn't true and that LDS believers are misguided no more makes one a bigot than believing that Flat Earthers are a little touched in the head makes one a bigot.

And this is all still true even if the non-believer used to believe the LDS church, and acted on those beliefs, formerly.

[_karl61]

Failure to see a butt whooping in Missouri and Illinois is a big issue with me. Also, they should have gone from New York to Portland, which had a port and an economy if there was going to be no polygamy and to Palestine if there was going to be. One congressman in the middle to late 1800's said that the LDS are more like the people of the Congo or Middle East than the United States. Failure to see that the 1800's was a Protestant Nation wasn't so good either.

[_Jason Bourne]

First no other religions of which I am aware had such a ban to start with, and seems most of the rest of the modern world had long since decided segregation and discrimination was a horrible thing. Pretty much all the peoples in developed nations saw what the prophets could not accept...

The SBC was started in the 19th century primarily because of disputes and concerns over blacks, slavery and the justification of treating blacks as lesser humans. Southern Baptists argues that slavery and the way blacks were treated was biblical. The ideas that blacks were of the race of Cain and cursed was another theme they had as well as other Protestant faiths of the day.

Good for the SBC, yet another church whose creeds were an abomination before the Lord. What does that actually demonstrate? That a false church, not of God, and devoid of divine revelation and a divine mandate from God can believe and practice abhorrent things? Ok, great. Is this comparison supposed to actually help out the LDS church, whose creed, if you will, LDS do not think is an abomination in God's sight, and which claims divine revelation and a mandate from God to be his kingdom on earth?

I simply provided it as an example of another religion that restricted activities of black people. Nothing else. That is what TD asked for.

[_Yong Xi]

As to the OP, I'm going to put on my apologist hat for a second...

When Joseph Smith and BY were prophets, that is when the restoration happened. There was a flood of revelation to provide us with the essentials to get back to the CK. Nearly all of it got restored back then, so there really hasn't been much need for additional doctrinal revelation. Most of it now is God telling the brethren to tell us how to live good lives.

.....and how to spend His money.

[_Yong Xi]

As to the OP, I'm going to put on my apologist hat for a second...

When Joseph Smith and BY were prophets, that is when the restoration happened. There was a flood of revelation to provide us with the essentials to get back to the CK. Nearly all of it got restored back then, so there really hasn't been much need for additional doctrinal revelation. Most of it now is God telling the brethren to tell us how to live good lives.

.....and how to spend His money.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I'll tell you, if I thought the Rosicrucian Society was a bunch of hooey, you wouldn't see me lending my person to its credibility.

Surprisingly, I do agree with Crockett on this issue, though I understand others must do what they can to keep their families intact.

When I decided the Mormon church was not what it claimed to be and that Joseph Smith was a liar and charlatan, I knew I couldn't in good conscience support that organization with my attendance or my membership. I informed my husband that I no longer believed the church to be true, that I would no longer be attending, that my children would only attend every other week, that I would no longer wear my garments and that I intended to resign. Understandably, he was shocked, but the ground rules were clear and he could make a decision to remain married to me under those circumstances or leave. I felt it only right to deal with him openly and honestly, plus, I intended to pry my daughters from Mormonism and didn't want to do it surreptitiously; I wanted to do nothing behind my husband's back.

Since telling my husband I no longer believed, I have not stepped foot in a Mormon church building. After months of misery, my husband decided to look into what caused his wife's apostasy and he eventually left the church, too, along with my four daughters.

Creating clear boundaries and not blurring them by attending church periodically is important, in my opinion. It only creates false hope in the still-believing spouse and confuses the children. In some circumstances, that's not possible. I understand that, but to me, my own personal integrity and protecting my children was the most important thing. If my husband doesn't want a woman who insists on living according to her own conscience, he shouldn't be married to me. I took a big risk and it paid off, but I couldn't have done it any other way.

KA

[_Trevor]

I could be mistaken, but I think the word is "bigotry."

I think the word I am looking for here is "non-sequitur."