Question for Mo Experts

[Moksha]

Blaming the Mormon Apartheid Policy on God, rather than racism, is strictly a Mormon heresy.

[dastardly stem]

OK - breaking my self-imposed "no direct engagement" rule to point out that that’s really not much of a response. Just a deflection. I'm disappointed.

Now, back to normal operation.

I had already given a rather lengthy response. He pretty much blew it off.

Shutting down the conversation because I referred to the NIV?

C’mon.

I was rather disappointed. It’s not the first time that I’ve been making some argument/point and then a rather inane comment/sidetrack takes place to blow it all up.

Silly thing is, it usually works because others let it pass.

Regards,
MG

MG,

I entered the conversation asking a question:

dastardly stem wrote: ↑
Does the church not support the James passage wherein it says “if any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God…and it shall be given him”.

You responded:

Knowing that you are an unbeliever in any literal interpretation of scripture it is interesting that you are taking a hard fundamentalist/literal viewpoint of James 1:5.

It appears to me you “ pretty much blew it off”. I took it as you “ Shutting down the conversation”. I asked you if the church supports the passage in James. It doesn’t matter if “generously” is thrown in there. It says “it shall be given him” if they ask. Generously or liberally….it still suggests god will answer a question for one who lacks wisdom and asks. That you deflected and made it about a “hard fundamentalist/literal viewpoint” is a deflection from the conversation and question I asked. It’s not my view I’m talking about. I’m asking for your opinion on the church’s view.

Admittedly as you continued down that course I chuckled and didn’t take your responses seriously. I shouldn’t have been so quick to give up. But, my original question still stands, unaddressed.

[malkie]

Can someone remind me - did I have any reasons to not interact with MG in the past?

Have I learned my lesson this time?

How condescending.

Regards,
MG

You forgot the last part of the quote - YMMV. If you don't like it, choose not to be offended. On the other hand, if the shoe fits, ...

In case you don't know what "YMMV" means, it's an abbreviation for "your mileage may vary" - in other words, I recognize that you may disagree, and have the right to do so.

(now, that's condescending! )

Sorry to be so harsh, but sometimes you folks crack me up with your dogmatic views in regards to subject matters that you don’t even believe in.

As has been pointed out to you more than once, it doesn't matter whether "us folks" believe it or not. The point is that you seem to be OK making excuses for scriptural contradictions by quoting/cherry-picking from people who won't give you the time of day. But as long as they say something - anything - that seems to support your view, you're happy.

I'm simply suggesting to you that if you want to make a scriptural point in a discussion on Mormonism it might be as well to stick with church-approved scriptures, rather than looking elsewhere, and especially in places where, if you had looked a little further, you would have found they don't even consider you to be Christian. Someone should point the Faith Founded on Fact people to this thread - I'm sure that they would be amused/amazed to find a faithful Mormon quoting them.

As for your saying that this means that folks are going "ballistic" - give me a break: most of us here are being perfectly calm, not hyperbolic, or even parabolic

For me, your description of the alternate translation shows only that the plain reading of what sent Joseph Smith into the woods to pray, which the missionaries teach from the KJV, is possibly suspect.

By the way, a better counter than trying to find a different translation, and then a dictionary definition that suits you (as if the dictionary were a source of gospel truth) might have been to question whether the person asking was asking "in faith, nothing wavering", because you could plausibly argue that apostate Mormons might not be asking "in faith". That way you wouldn't need the Faith Founded on Fact website, or the NIV, or the dictionary definition.
You're welcome.

[MG 2.0]

I'm simply suggesting to you that if you want to make a scriptural point in a discussion on Mormonism it might be as well to stick with church-approved scriptures, rather than looking elsewhere, and especially in places where, if you had looked a little further, you would have found they don't even consider you to be Christian. Someone should point the Faith Founded on Fact people to this thread - I'm sure that they would be amused/amazed to find a faithful Mormon quoting them.

You are skirting the issue at hand. And that is whether God is the one in charge of whether or not he reveals anything at a given time. There are a plethora of examples which demonstrate that God only reveals that which people are either worthy or ready to receive. I notice that in this series of posts that “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little,” is completely brushed over. The NIV translation supports this doctrinal position.

Your abhorrence to looking at an alternate view of James 1:5 is due to the fact that your world view and expectations of how God works in the world would potentially be thrown out the window if you looked at this scriptural exegesis with any degree of seriousness.

Thanks for engaging malkie. I find it interesting to see how views of individuals take radical turns after leaving the church. I don’t expect we’ll find ourselves on the same page.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I’m asking for your opinion on the church’s view.

As if all the thinking has been done, right?

Thanks for the conversation and tossing some ideas around.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

President McKay sweat it out beseeching the Lord to reveal an answer to the priesthood ban and authorize him to reverse it. President McKay admitted that the Lord told him it wasn’t time. Can you imagine how McKay felt knowing the ramifications of this revelation from the Lord?

A lot of folks would have showered praises on him if he would have received another revelation. No doubt.

The interesting question here would be, did President McKay think that God was leading the church into grievous error?

I doubt it.

He simply followed the Lord’s will. Did he have questions as to why the time wasn’t right. I’ll bet he did.

Regards,
MG

Here's the Church's 1949 statement:

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.


You're saying this statement was God's will. Right?

//

By the way, is "God does not have an obligation" your opinion or Church doctrine?

Mormon God thought it was more important to preemptively ban tobacco use than preemptively allow blacks the priesthood.

Priorities.

[dastardly stem]

I’m asking for your opinion on the church’s view.

As if all the thinking has been done, right?

Thanks for the conversation and tossing some ideas around.

Regards,
MG

Yeah…no problem. Another thought…

I was one day reading the aEpistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack bwisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
12 Never did any passage of ascripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed bwisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects cunderstood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in adarkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God.

Granted, you have disengaged when I first asked you a question, but perhaps you can carry this with you. Above is more Mormon scripture. Here God, given this is inspired scripture, endorses the view that He will answer questions, liberally. If someone asks He will give. Full stop, right? LDS have an advantage here. They don’t need to assume God is under no obligation to answer questions. He confirms the KJV passage in James wherein He’ll give liberally for any who ask…without blame or reservation. But for some reason you are under the impression God will refuse to give to those who ask, at least, at times, for His own mysterious purposes. You seem intent to think God will refuse to give an answer when asked at various times. But the passage gives the opposite impression. Take courage, sir. Ask and you shall receive….apparently. So, on that why did God allow His church to mistakenly teach as if it were inspired thought endorsed by Him, that some people, based on race, are cursed, were less valiant in a precious world and thus were not allowed the blessing of holding the priesthood nor allowed to enter temple covenants? God can help you, MG. You don’t need to deflect and blame.

Something for you to think about if nothing else.

[Morley]

By the way, a better counter than trying to find a different translation, and then a dictionary definition that suits you (as if the dictionary were a source of gospel truth) might have been to question whether the person asking was asking "in faith, nothing wavering", because you could plausibly argue that apostate Mormons might not be asking "in faith".

Perhaps it's that if MG used this argument, he'd still have no explanation for why God does not always answer his own prophet's faithful, sincere, and pertinent queries.

Maybe MG will come back and explain why God would say one thing to McKay, but a decade later, say something completely different to Kimball. What 'line-upon-line' was missing with Pres. McKay?

Perhaps he'll also reappear and answer as to whether or not his "God is not obligated" to answer his chosen prophets is his own opinion or Church doctrine.

[malkie]

By the way, a better counter than trying to find a different translation, and then a dictionary definition that suits you (as if the dictionary were a source of gospel truth) might have been to question whether the person asking was asking "in faith, nothing wavering", because you could plausibly argue that apostate Mormons might not be asking "in faith".

Perhaps it's that if MG used this argument, he'd still have no explanation for why God does not always answer his own prophet's faithful, sincere, and pertinent queries.

Maybe MG will come back and explain why God would say one thing to McKay, but a decade later, say something completely different to Kimball. What 'line-upon-line' was missing with Pres. McKay?

Perhaps he'll also reappear and answer as to whether or not his "God is not obligated" to answer his chosen prophets is his own opinion or Church doctrine.

Good points!

And while he's about it then, perhaps he could explain why the "box" he is complaining about - the one he accuses us folks of trying to put god in - was constructed by god, and inserted neatly in the New Testament for all, including JSJr, to find.

[Morley]

Good points!

And while he's about it then, perhaps he could explain why the "box" he is complaining about - the one he accuses us folks of trying to put god in - was constructed by god, and inserted neatly in the New Testament for all, including JSJr, to find.

If God's obligation to answer faithful prayers is null, I wonder what happens to Moroni's promise?

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.