LDS

[RandFan]

What I said was that for him God doesn't exist, and, yes, I also said he won't change his mind.

I base those statements on the fact that he has repeatedly said (in post after post) that science-based evidence is mandatory in order for him to change his position (the wording varies but that represents his basic position). Consequently, for him, faith--the first principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ--is not acceptable. I will qualify my original statement to this extent: As long as he rejects faith as a means by which to become a theist, he will never find God, at least not in the Christian sense. I am expressing an opinion here based on what he, himself, has said.

I can change my mind. I have changed my mind on many things. Blind faith is ignorance. I see no reason to believe something based on blind faith.

You are the one who cannot change his mind. Your faith precludes logic and reason. My faith requires it. Your belief is the very same as the faith in con artists.

 

[Stomatopoda]

Wrong. Atheist: "One who believes that there is no deity." (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., p. 77) No other definition is listed.
And as for atheism, the dictionary reads: "a disbelief in the existence of deity" and "the doctrine that there is no deity."

Perhaps the word you're looking for is agnostic. Check it out.

"Agnostic" and "atheist" describe different things and are not necessarily mutually exclusive or inclusive. Many, if not most, atheists are also agnostic.

 

[jsfisher]

In BY's era, bias against blacks was rampant. That bias was incorporated into ordinances and statutes, making discrimination perfectly legal. Ignorance about blacks was pervasive, even among some well-educated men and women. Was BY, being fallible, influenced by that environment? I think he probably was.

Thank your for this. You seem to be painting a view of LDS prophets as very dedicated and devoted members of the Church leadership, but more victims of their own era than receivers of the direct word of God.

When he implemented the ban, was he acting under the Spirit? I don't know, and neither do you.

What I know about where Young got his inspiration is wholly irrelevant. My interest, consistent with the purpose of this thread, is what is the Church's teaching regarding all this.

I think I understand Cat Tale's view, and perhaps now yours, but I am also interested in the official LDS position.

The 1978 proclamation was correct for a multiplicity of reasons, foremost of which was that President Kimball sought guidance from the Lord to such an extent that he actually made himself ill (spent long days/nights in the temple).
Did secular pressure play a part? Of course, the first Civil Rights Act had been passed years earlier. Additionally, bias against blacks, based principally on ignorance, had been proven unjustified.

No, this only explains if from a evolving human ethic perspective, not a religious one. It comes back to the question of whether the LDS prophet speaks the word of God or not. Did Kimball? If so, then why not Young? If not, then what does this prophet status actually mean? Your view I think I understand, but what is the Church's position?

In my view, the reason the Church has a living prophet is to enable it to
implement the Lord-sanctioned changes that are essential for its survival.
As I have said before, no institution can survive if it unable to adapt to the changes that are inherent in a dynamic world. Otherwise, Emerson would still be manufacturing b&w TVs with 13-inch screens.

There are some interesting implications in this. Are you saying that God does speak through its prophet, but with what the people need to hear at the time, not necessarily with what is absolute truth?

 

[Cat Tale]

I think I understand Cat Tale's view, and perhaps now yours, but I am also interested in the official LDS position.

On why the ban in the first place? I think you'll be hard pressed to find it. I don't think the Church has an official stance on why, which is why there's so much speculation on it. Over the years I've heard people say that 'perhaps it was due to x,' or 'maybe y'... truth of the matter is, no one knows for sure. But what we do know is that it was at one time considered enough to be doctrine that for over 130 years the blacks were forbidden to hold the Priesthood, and that was necessary for it to be overturned in 1978.

Obviously my main interest in the Church is as it stands today, though some of what it is today is better understood by an understanding of what it was in the early days. I don't mean to wiggle out of your question, it's just I've been looking for the Church's official stance even before you asked, and so far no luck.

Hopefully, that was your question.

 

[PixyMisa]

What I said was that for him God doesn't exist, and, yes, I also said he won't change his mind.

I base those statements on the fact that he has repeatedly said (in post after post) that science-based evidence is mandatory in order for him to change his position (the wording varies but that represents his basic position).

Evidence of any kind would be nice. This is a skeptics' forum. We are skeptics. We require evidence.

Consequently, for him, faith--the first principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ--is not acceptable.

Well, of course not. Because by that standard, we'd have to accept every religion.

They can't all be true.

They can all be false.

So the latter is the default position, pending evidence.

I will qualify my original statement to this extent: As long as he rejects faith as a means by which to become a theist, he will never find God, at least not in the Christian sense.

So the only reason to believe in God is because one believes in God? I find that less than compelling.

 

[pakeha]

In my opinion based on what I've been taught over the years... It basically goes back to the Church membership having a common goal, to achieve the Celestial Kingdom. If a revelation brings us closer to meeting that goal then obviously I think it sounds plausible, and then it is up to me to put it to the test. Test is LDS lingo for 'study the revelation, ponder it out in our minds and hearts, pray about it, and act accordingly.' Those who accept what a Prophet says remain active in the Church, those who do not can decide if it's something they can live with inside the church, or they can find another church where they feel more akin to the doctrine.

Thanks for your reply, Cat Tale!
I read it just at the end of the time I have for the forum, so I'll think about what you wrote during my working day and get back to you later.

 

[Slowvehicle]

skyrider44:

Would you mind providing actual, neutral, peer-reviewed sources for anachronisms in the BoM that have been demonstrated by physical, objective evidence to have existed in the pre-Colombian Americas? I would most appreciate references to actual archaeological discoveries, not speculations about misidentifications of fauna or suppositions about meteoric metals.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ahem, minds out of gutters. Spitting vs. swallowing in this scenario means rejecting unproven assertions vs. mindlessly accepting unproven assertions.

I don't understand What else could it possibly mean?

 

[Pup]

There are some interesting implications in this. Are you saying that God does speak through its prophet, but with what the people need to hear at the time, not necessarily with what is absolute truth?

Actually, I think I see now how Skyrider's emphasis on doing things which make the church grow, fits into church philosophy. It's the "milk before meat" issue.

Comes from Corinthians :

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

But Mormons also have it more firmly in D&C 19:22:

21 And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me.
22 For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

(Doctrinal side question: If God and Jesus are two separate entities in Mormon theology, why does "I" in this chapter seem to flip back and forth between them? Are they both supposed to be there talking alternately? But then check out verse 19:18 which sounds like both at once.)

So anyway, I think Randfan mentioned it earlier in the thread, but "milk before meat" could explain a justification for why it's considered more important for the church to adapt to popular culture than to be right.

For example, here's an article (pdf) on "Obtaining and Maintaining Scriptural and Doctrinal Integrity" for the church educational system: https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/cont...ng-scriptural-and-doctrinal-integrity_eng.pdf

Imagine the following philosophy applied on a larger scale to prophets, not just to Sunday school teachers:

An essential ingredient in teaching the principles of the gospel is to be sensitive to the needs, the spiritual preparation, and the maturity of the students you are working with. Elder Boyd K. Packer [said]...

"Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak..."

"...The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy."

I could see a Mormon using that to justify that those white people in the 19th and 20th centuries wouldn't be able to handle blacks giving them blessings and going to the temple with them and spreading cooties all over, so better to give the (white) people milk and let the church grow, than give them meat too soon.

However, if somebody used that as a justification for racism, I'd point out that Rev. Charles Finney and Oberlin College were doing just fine in the exact same period, giving blacks a college education alongside whites, running the underground railroad and preaching abolition. Despite being just as in-your-face as the Mormons, Oberlin College remained in Ohio and did its thing while the Mormons were run out of Ohio, and of course Oberlin College still exists today.

Finney actually had a background somewhat similar to both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, so one can't even blame the difference on cultural upbringing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Finney#Early_Life

Born in Warren, Connecticut, Finney was the youngest of fifteen children. The son of farmers, Finney never attended college, but his six-foot three-inch stature, piercing eyes, musical skill and leadership abilities gained him recognition in his community. He studied as an apprentice to become a lawyer, but after a dramatic conversion experience and baptism into the Holy Spirit in Adams, New York, he gave up legal practice to preach the gospel.

The following quote is from http://books.google.com/books?id=oRNQamJnDuUC&pg=PA199&output=html, which also describes how when some white students demanded that blacks be segregated in the dining hall, the teachers embarrassed them by segregating them from the mixed black-white area, until they were willing to accept equality.

At Oberlin, Finney wrote in his memoirs, "in our preaching and public instruction we aimed to correct this feeling... of prejudice against color."

This was in the 1840s, at the same time Brigham Young was offering the milk of no black priesthood holders to his white flock.

So I'd argue that there are historic examples of people who did offer "meat" and succeeded. Offering "milk" was not a requirement to be popular, even if popularity was more important than eternal truth; it was Brigham Young's choice.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Wrong. Atheist: "One who believes that there is no deity." (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., p. 77) No other definition is listed.
And as for atheism, the dictionary reads: "a disbelief in the existence of deity" and "the doctrine that there is no deity."

Well if a dictionary says that, then who are we to argue against it regarding the content of our own minds?

By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary defines an atheism as: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

Perhaps the word you're looking for is agnostic. Check it out.

You will find that the great majority of atheists on this forum also define themselves as agnostic. Agnosticism and atheism describe two different things which are not mutually exclusive. As an agnostic atheist I lack belief in gods, but I do not pretend to know that gods do not exist. Analogously, I have no belief that Bertrand Russell's favorite teapot is orbiting the sun out in the Oort Cloud, but its presence or absence is epistemologically unknowable to us, so I am agnostic regarding its existence.

One can also be a gnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, or an agnostic theist.

 

[Foster Zygote]

What I said was that for him God doesn't exist, and, yes, I also said he won't change his mind.

I'm going to have to rely on RandFan's own words regarding his willingness to change his mind, rather than yours.

I base those statements on the fact that he has repeatedly said (in post after post) that science-based evidence is mandatory in order for him to change his position (the wording varies but that represents his basic position).

What non-scientific evidence would you have us accept?

Consequently, for him, faith--the first principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ--is not acceptable.

Oh, faith. As faith is belief without evidence, then it is most definitely not acceptable as evidence regarding the true nature of the universe.

I will qualify my original statement to this extent: As long as he rejects faith as a means by which to become a theist, he will never find God, at least not in the Christian sense.

That's the thing, though. If we accept faith, then we can accept any form of theism. And therein lies the problem: The same faith, belief without evidence, is cited by adherents of virtually every religion. Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and Evangelical Christians all rely on faith for their certainty that their mutually contradictory religions are true. I too was taught that faith is a virtue. But then I realized that it is not. Faith stifles free inquiry and makes us comfortable with ideas that we cannot defend rationally.

I am expressing an opinion here based on what he, himself, has said.

But that opinion is based on an erroneous interpretation of what he has said.

 

[Cat Tale]

(Doctrinal side question: If God and Jesus are two separate entities in Mormon theology, why does "I" in this chapter seem to flip back and forth between them? Are they both supposed to be there talking alternately? But then check out verse 19:18 which sounds like both at once.)

To the best of my knowledge all revelation comes from Jesus, not the Father. In D&C section 19 it's all Jesus doing the talking.

 

[Janadele]

Actually, I think I see now how Skyrider's emphasis on doing things which make the church grow, fits into church philosophy. It's the "milk before meat" issue.

It is not yet the time to bring forth clarification of the advanced knowledge and understanding that President Brigham Young possessed.

 

[Cleon]

It is not yet the time to bring forth clarification of the advanced knowledge and understanding that President Brigham Young possessed.

So Brigham Young's disgusting racism was just some greater wisdom the rest of us can't grok?

Nah, seems more likely that it was just racist hate. And the way the Church has tried to distance itself from its explicitly racist past seems to indicate that even the LDS leadership recognizes as much.

 

[dafydd]

It is not yet the time to bring forth clarification of the advanced knowledge and understanding that President Brigham Young possessed.

Now I know that you are joking.

 

[Craig4]

It is not yet the time to bring forth clarification of the advanced knowledge and understanding that President Brigham Young possessed.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the obvious? You believe in a religion created by bigots and sexual deviants. I would not want to be associated with such people even in the far remove of history. To do so would to be lower myself.

 

[Pup]

It is not yet the time to bring forth clarification of the advanced knowledge and understanding that President Brigham Young possessed.

As Dafydd says, that either sounds like sarcasm, or an opinion that Brigham Young was actually right and people today just aren't racist enough to accept the "meat" he offered.

I realize that "Brigham Young was right" is pretty much the church's stand on the polygamy issue--that it's still correct but it just isn't practical to practice it on earth anymore. But are you hinting the same is true about disallowing blacks the priesthood?

 

[carlitos]

[aside]There's slim evidence Watson ever said that.[/aside]

I think that a couple of those other quotes came from urban-myth land too. I can't be bothered to google the whole set, but they feel like apologist copypasta to me.

What I said was that for him God doesn't exist, and, yes, I also said he won't change his mind.

I base those statements on the fact that he has repeatedly said (in post after post) that science-based evidence is mandatory in order for him to change his position (the wording varies but that represents his basic position). Consequently, for him, faith--the first principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ--is not acceptable. I will qualify my original statement to this extent: As long as he rejects faith as a means by which to become a theist, he will never find God, at least not in the Christian sense. I am expressing an opinion here based on what he, himself, has said.

Why is that a problem? Are you saying that there will never be any science-based evidence for God? Why not? If God started doing skywriting, or even Twitter, instead of relying on these unreliable prophets, wouldn't that be OK evidence for some people to change their minds?

 

[Foster Zygote]

If God started doing skywriting, or even Twitter, instead of relying on these unreliable prophets, wouldn't that be OK evidence for some people to change their minds?

"We apologize for the inconvenience" written in giant letters of fire would be a good start.

 

[skyrider44]

I can change my mind. I have changed my mind on many things. Blind faith is ignorance. I see no reason to believe something based on blind faith.

I made no reference to blind faith, a qualifier you have added.

Your faith precludes logic and reason.

No it doesn't. The cosmological argument, the design argument, and the ontological argument by no means preclude "logic and reason."

: Your belief is the very same as the faith in con artists.

Didn't you post something recently about forum rules re. ad hominem attacks?