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

[_truth dancer]

Hey Mok... :-)

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

Well....

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...

God seemed to be way behind the rest of modern consciousness... :-)

I know I can't read the mind of God, (smile), but seems to me if God were at the helm, She/He/It would be leading the world in consciousness, enlightenment, equality, and compassion... not decades behind the average folks.

Similarly, much of the modern world is moving toward seeing women as equal human beings, removing the long held discrimination, letting go of the oppression... the LDS church holds on to the archaic practice.

I wonder how long it will take for "God" to show the LDS leaders that women are actually human beings who can contribute to the world in ways additional to procreation. Ya know? ;-)

~dancer~

[_rcrocket]

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

[Guest]

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

I no longer wonder about such things.

I no longer try and insert god into anything, especially mythical events, compiled and recorded centuries after they supposedly happened.

You may wonder about such things. and it may float your boat. but, once I realized the counsel at Nicaea was an attempt to gather together, and solidify by force all forms of Christianity, and also create a creed that provided justification to murder millions of people in the name of their Christ. I stopped wondering about odd happenings in the old and new testament, and started a journey into what I call reality. It may not be for you, but it works for me..

[_Scottie]

The LDS apologists are wrong, of course. Ezra Taft Benson, a.k.a. the prophet, said: "The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything." That was before he became a prophet himself, though, so perhaps he later found out firsthand that it's the LDS apologists who were right all along, not the Lord's annointed.

However, Brigham Young, a.k.a. the prophet, said: "when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation." Although that was said before BY actually became a prophet himself, he did have the Holy Priesthood at the time, and thus the Lord didn't hesitate to choose him as a mouthpiece, which is confirmed by the prophet Joseph saying: "Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth."

The LDS apologists are preaching false doctrine by and by. Perhaps their priesthood has been taken from them, if they are male (and we know how clueless females are when it comes to discussing things pertaining to priesthood authority; their time is much better spent preparing doughnuts, according to Russell M. Nelson, who, no doubt, has the Holy Priesthood still).

Another piece of false doctrine is that God never changes his mind. Of course he does. Remember how he said (through Joseph) that a prophet is not always a prophet? But he also said (through Joseph) that BY was right concerning the words of a prophet (or any priesthood holder, for that matter) conveying the words of God. And Ezra Taft Benson (who, no doubt, held the Priesthood in 1980) later clarified that the prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything. So it's really the apologists that are speaking as men when they say the Adam-God doctrine was personal opinion.

It's clear that God is currently going through an identity crisis. He is desperately trying to forget his lowly beginnings as a mortal man, which became clear when he said the following through GBH: "I don't know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it." Oh yeah, and it follows from that statement that God is not omniscient, either. At least God currently thinks he's not omniscient. He may change his mind on he subject later.

As for human beings living on the Sun, I don't even see any contradiction there. Has any prophet actually said that there aren't any human beings on the Sun? I've never heard it. Therefore, it's doctrine and science will probably confirm it later.

But I should probably make it clear that my opinion and interpretation are really worthless because I have never held the Holy Priesthood since I don't have the right body parts for it. So I'm going to go back to making doughnuts. Anyone have a good recipe?

Why do the female posters here all kick the men's asses in eloquent, humorous and overall excellent posts??

[_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.

[_Scottie]

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.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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

Yes, some people do ponder such things and ask "why?" which leads them to question whether some god was involved in any of these events or if it was just some guy or group of guys making it up as they go along. Others say, "It's in the Bible (or the Prophet said so) and that's good enough for me."

[_truth dancer]

Hey Jason,

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.

Was there ever a time when a religion did not allow blacks to hold the priesthood?

For example, did the Catholic church not allow black Priests?

Seems to me from the time of Christ (even before), there were black Christians, black Jews, and blacks in the priesthood. (Think Ethopia for an example here).

And it is quite obvious after DNA testing that the African Lemba community has indeed descendants from the tribe of Aaron.

From the Lemba people.... http://www.haruth.com/JewishLemba.html

The tradition of the Jewish priesthood, or kehunah, has a genetic basis that points to a single ancestor -- (possibly) Aaron, older brother of Moses. What’s more, this priestly genetic marker may also be a signature of the ancient Hebrew population: you can convert to Judaism, but you can‘t convert into the priesthood. The gene trail, in other words, may lead past Aaron to his great-great-grandfather, Jacob, a.k.a. Israel. Because the kohen genetic signature is rare or absent in all non-Jewish populations tested so far, the findings support the Lemba tradition of Jewish ancestry.

Another fascinating part of the story is that researchers came up with a genetically indicated time line as to when the original kohen forefather (Aaron) lived. Using a method for genetic dating based on the rate at which certain bits of the Y chromosome mutate, they found that the date was about 3,000 years ago; consistent with Jewish tradition.

Anyway, the LDS church was way behind the eight ball, and followers of the rest of modern consciousness, IMHO! ;-)

~dancer~

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't actually wonder about that. If the New Testament records of this are even true at all, it's probably just another religion of man being lead by men. Trying to rationalize a 20 year process of divine revelation by anology with an example from the New Testament only works with those who have a vested interested in the New Testament being accepted as true. I don't, and I'm not impressed by the analogy.

Joseph Smith came up with "revelations" seemingly at will, and yet the Brethren took over 20 years to finally receive their revelation, or at least come to a meeting of the minds on whether God would be OK with the change they were contemplating? It's not the same at all, is it? One would think that if Jesus Christ really were at the helm of this church, talking to and leading and instructing his Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, it wouldn't take 20 years for them to figure it out.

I don't actually expect anyone to tell us anything that has been revealed lately. That's because nothing has been, and the only things people could really point to are things like them bearing their testimonies.

I'm one of those LDS who learned about calling and election being made sure, and how it supposedly involved the Savior himself appearing to someone. I had a companion on my mission who wept bitter tears because he was never visited by Jesus, despite his most intense efforts to be worthy of it, and asking for it. I knew where he was coming from, because I'd read the book of Ether where the brother of Jared is told that with sufficient faith the Lord cannot withold himself from being seen by the bro of Jared. Well, where is he? I had faith. I once tried walking on water when I was a teenager, when I exercised great faith in the Lord. I was a good kid, and I took the scriptures seriously. When it said all the things one could do if one only had faith the size of a grain of mustard seed, I figured I had at least that much. But back to the apostles, where they've been called as Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ, don't you think it's at least a little odd that none of them have apparently actually seen Jesus Christ? I know Gordon B. Hinckley denied having seen Jesus or God when he was asked on TV, I forget if it was Mike Wallace of Larry King.

Joseph Smith told us about Kolob, about moon men dressed as Quakers, and about Zelph, and tons and tons of other things. Whether any of it was true or not is anybody's guess, but he wasn't shy about saying it. What have our prophets actually revealed to us lately? Nothing. And who is surprised by that? Not I, knowing as I do now that this is a man-made church lead by men who are no more true prophets of a God who actually exists than the leaders of any other church on Earth, past or present.

[_Jason Bourne]

Why do the female posters here all kick the men's asses in eloquent, humorous and overall excellent posts??

Women are smarter and better then men. I have known this a long time. I am just able to start admitting it.