Met with the Missionaries?

twhite982 · Feb 20, 2004

happyinhisgrace said:
Tom, have you seriously investigated the original of the egyptian papyri that JS used? I have another book I would be happy to send you that talked only about this specific topic and goes into quite a bit of detail on it.

Grace (the girl who loves to share her books)

I looked into statements from both sides.

Not sure what you mean by "seriously investigated"

Mrs. Librarian, I do appreciate the offer, but I'll just wait till I reach this point (PofGP) in my scripture study.

Right now I am concentrating on the BofM and don't want to get too side-tracked.

Thanks for the offer

twhite982 · Feb 20, 2004

SkyLark,

There is a statement in the D&C (13, 124, 128) regarding the Aaronic priesthood being taken from the earth when the sons of Levi offer an acceptable offering in righteousness. The statement that Ammon raised brought this to mind.

But, let me state again, so everyone understands:

1.) There is NO scriptural support for blacks being "neutral" in heaven.

2.) There is NO scriptural support for the last soul of the blacks that were neutral to die and then they could recieve the priesthood.

3.) We DO know what happened in regards to the priesthood ban, but NOT why.

4.) I also made statements that to me concretely rule out racism as the reason for the ban.

5.) It is also clear that those in the pre-existance were valient enough to come to this earth. 1/3 of the hosts of heaven were cast out. So the remaining 2/3 made the "cut-off"

6.) Whatever happened in pre-existance we cam to this earth as innocent through the future atonement of Jesus. Foreordination and predestination still played a part, which provided opportunity.

Ammon may have a different view as to what constitutes official doctrine and our standard by which we judge ourselves and our church, but I feel the strongest evidences point towards LDS scripture and official statements made by the 1st Presidency, and accepted by the Qof12 and the general church body.

The LDS just like anyone else when little information is given on a subject, especially when its as touchy as the priesthood ban will try to give answers that will satisfy those with honest questions. The problem is that in doing so they tend to extend themselves beyond the boundaries of what scripture and official statements dictate as our standard of judgement.

Enquiring minds do want to know, is a powerful pill, but as another cliche goes, curiosity killed the cat.

I'm not denegrating any of the LDS leaders, but trying to explain the best I can why there have been many questionable statements.

Hope that helps.

Tom

skylark1 · Feb 20, 2004

Thanks for responding. I agree that it seems like the MTC would ensure that only official doctrine is taught to the missionaries in training. That is why I find this so disturbing. I find it more disturbing than quotes LDS leaders that are over a hundred years old, because apparently this is what is currently being taught.

Ammon, I was not trying to "set you up" or "twist your words" by asking you about this. I just find this teaching so tremendously offensive. Please just try to take a step back and think about it. Can you really believe that someone like OJ or Dennis Rodman (or inset any other poor African-American role model) was more righteous in a pre-existence than someone like Martin Luther King or George Washington Carver? It is a pity that I cannot come up with more positive examples, but I think that is more likely because of the oppression, prejudice, and bigotry that blacks have been subjected to than because they were less righteous in a pre-existence. The idea of superior and inferior races is very offensive.

Do you also believe that those who are born into wealth were more valiant in a pre-existence, than those who were born into poverty. What about brains, beauty, our parents, is this all determined by how righteous we were in a pre-existence? Were LDS more righteous than non-LDS in a pre-existence? Were those of northern European descent more righteous in a pre-existence? Where does it ever end?

I am trying to understand this extremely offensive doctrine, and how much it affects other beliefs that LDS hold besides the LDS priesthood being withheld and then granted to black males of African descent. I would appreciate your comments.

AMMON · Feb 20, 2004

skylark1 said:
Thanks for responding. I agree that it seems like the MTC would ensure that only official doctrine is taught to the missionaries in training. That is why I find this so disturbing. I find it more disturbing than quotes LDS leaders that are over a hundred years old, because apparently this is what is currently being taught.

Ammon, I was not trying to "set you up" or "twist your words" by asking you about this. I just find this teaching so tremendously offensive. Please just try to take a step back and think about it. Can you really believe that someone like OJ or Dennis Rodman (or inset any other poor African-American role model) was more righteous in a pre-existence than someone like Martin Luther King or George Washington Carver? It is a pity that I cannot come up with more positive examples, but I think that is more likely because of the oppression, prejudice, and bigotry that blacks have been subjected to than because they were less righteous in a pre-existence. The idea of superior and inferior races is very offensive.

Do you also believe that those who are born into wealth were more valiant in a pre-existence, than those who were born into poverty. What about brains, beauty, our parents, is this all determined by how righteous we were in a pre-existence? Were LDS more righteous than non-LDS in a pre-existence? Were those of northern European descent more righteous in a pre-existence? Where does it ever end?

I am trying to understand this extremely offensive doctrine, and how much it affects other beliefs that LDS hold besides the LDS priesthood being withheld and then granted to black males of African descent. I would appreciate your comments.

I am sorry you find the concept offensive. Based on what Mr. White has written, I'm not sure I can call my position "doctrine." Nevertheless, it makes sense to me, and I don't find it offensive.

If certain souls in the premortal life made choices that resulted in the denial of blessings on Earth, how is that different from souls on Earth making choices that will deny them blessings in the afterlife? What if those who do not make it Heaven in the afterlife are colored red? Would God be racist in doing that? Do you see my point here?

As it was explained to me, and as I believe, the marking was from God to allow us to know which souls made what choices. Because of genetics, the marking would remain even after all the souls who made those choices had passed away. Thus, it is NOT the skin color that is the problem, for blacks can surely have the Priesthood now. It is the choices that the souls made before this life. Again, in the afterlife, I'm certain that those who do not make it to Heaven will be "marked" in some way; this is not racist, it's just the way it is.

And I STRONGLY reiterate, based on Mr. White's above post, that I hesitate to call this "doctrine." It is my opinion and understanding, based on what I've been taught.

skylark1 · Feb 20, 2004

Ammon,

Thanks for responding. I did not use the word "racist," but I did use the words "extremely offensive." If this is not doctrine, then why do you think that it was or is taught at the MTC?

Do you also believe that those who are born into wealth were more valiant in a pre-existence, than those who were born into poverty. What about brains, beauty, our parents, is this all determined by how righteous we were in a pre-existence? Were LDS more righteous than non-LDS in a pre-existence? Were those of northern European descent more righteous in a pre-existence? Where does it ever end?

I don't think that you commented on this, or is this what you were referring to when you mentioned denying blessings in this life based on "premortal choices?

twhite982 · Feb 20, 2004

skylark1 said:
Ammon,

Thanks for responding. I did not use the word "racist," but I did use the words "extremely offensive." If this is not doctrine, then why do you think that it is taught at theMTC?

SkyLark,

I know you're asking Ammon this, so I hope you don't mind me responding, but I feel maybe another response would help you understand things better.

Lets just imagine this from the MTC's point of view.

When we preach the gospel to the blacks, of course they will want to know why the priesthood was resticted from them for so long.

Would you want to hear an "I don't know answer" ? Of course not, especially since this issue for many has been the hinge upon whether they decided to join the church or not.

Maybe this answer was the best of all the answers available at the time.

Placing myself in the shoes of a black investigator, I would be a little taken back.

However, there are small implications of the thought of "punishment" being extended from the pre-existance.

The jewish leaders that cast the man born blind that Jesus healed out of the temple, asked if this man sinned or his parents. The implication of asking if the man BORN blind sinned would be that this would have to happen prior to his birth.

I mentioned before predestination and foreordination as a means God uses to provide opportunity of blessings to a select group. We can look at this and say its unfair, but we don't have the same view as God does.

Why would the priesthood of Aaron only be isolated to the house of Israel? and later because of unwillingness on the part of offering the firstborn as a servant to God, the tribe of Levi was given the sole responsibility.

While the points I'm raising don't come close to fully addressing the issue they do however give us things to think about.

As far as the restriciton goes would the answer taught to Ammon be better than nothing. For most people Yes.

Tom

skylark1 · Feb 20, 2004

Tom,

I don't mind you replying at all.

If I were a black LDS investigator, I would prefer an honest answer, even if the answer is "I don't know," rather than speculaton geared towards making the priesthood ban seem more acceptable.

You mentioned the Jewish leaders asking Jesus about the man who was born blind. Here is the passage:

John 9

1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

It is clear that this man was born blind, but Jesus does not agree that it was because of his sin or his parent's sin. He said that it happened so that the glory of God would be displayed in his life . . . and then he healed him.

twhite982 · Feb 20, 2004

skylark1 said:
Tom,

I don't mind you replying at all.

If I were a black LDS investigator, I would prefer an honest answer, even if the answer is "I don't know," rather than speculaton geared towards making the priesthood ban seem more acceptable.

I would too.

I didn't go on a mission, so maybe Ammon can answer this.

Maybe the black investigators were told that we don't have an absolute reason why, but the statement Ammon made was a possible explanation of the ban. Since its human nature to want to know the answers and not be left guessing.

But since we don't absolutely know why the ban was imposed, this COULD be the reason and therefore true. Scripture and official doctrine doesn't clarify that, so whether its true or not, in my mind its speculation

You mentioned the Jewish leaders asking Jesus about the man who was born blind. Here is the passage:

John 9

1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

It is clear that this man was born blind, but Jesus does not agree that it was because of his sin or his parent's sin. He said that it happened so that the glory of God would be displayed in his life . . . and then he healed him.

I agree that Jesus clarified why the man was born blind.

My point as I stated in my last post

However, there are small implications of the thought of "punishment" being extended from the pre-existance.

This idea had apparently been understood by his disciples and the Jewish leaders that questioned the man(which disciples would be nice to know) and taught from someone in authority, which I assume were the Jewish leaders of the day.

ChileanEldr2004 · Feb 20, 2004

Duende,

Cuantas idomias entiende o sea, sabe usted?

AMMON · Feb 20, 2004

skylark1 said:
Ammon,

Thanks for responding. I did not use the word "racist," but I did use the words "extremely offensive." If this is not doctrine, then why do you think that it was or is taught at the MTC?

I don't think that you commented on this, or is this what you were referring to when you mentioned denying blessings in this life based on "premortal choices?

Regarding the teachings of the MTC, while there is great oversight, perhaps the instructor took some liberty with his perception of the situation when no other instructors were in the room. I don't know. (You said you prefered an honest answer, and that is it.) As to the issue of where it ends, it ends based on revelation, which we believe is received by the Prophet and verified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The only modern restriction concerning the priesthood (re males) was the one at issue, as far as I know. The revelation in 1978 elimated that. Thus, I believe your question is moot.

twhite982 · Feb 20, 2004

Ammon said:
As to the issue of where it ends, it ends based on revelation, which we believe is received by the Prophet and verified by the First Presidence and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Great point.

Even Bruce R. Mckonkie who has made statements regarding this restriction that to me were speculative, whole heartedly accepted this revelation as he was a personal witness to it.

When revelation is recieved and accepted all speculation goes out the window.

Tom

skylark1 · Feb 20, 2004

Ammon said:
Regarding the teachings of the MTC, while there is great oversight, perhaps the instructor took some liberty with his perception of the situation when no other instructors were in the room. I don't know. (You said you prefered an honest answer, and that is it.) As to the issue of where it ends, it ends based on revelation, which we believe is received by the Prophet and verified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The only modern restriction concerning the priesthood (re males) was the one at issue, as far as I know. The revelation in 1978 elimated that. Thus, I believe your question is moot.

I do appreciate an honest answer. I am glad that you seem willing to consider that this belief is not true:

"Those people were identified in physical form with blackened skin. In 1978, the last soul who had been a part of that premortal group passed away; thus, blacks were then allowed to have the priesthood."

Is it LDS doctrine that choices made in a pre-mortal existance can affect blessings in this life? Just curious.

unbound · Feb 20, 2004

twhite982 said:
Great point.

Even Bruce R. Mckonkie who has made statements regarding this restriction that to me were speculative, whole heartedly accepted this revelation as he was a personal witness to it.

When revelation is recieved and accepted all speculation goes out the window.

Tom

What method do the quorom and FP use to verify this?

twhite982 · Feb 20, 2004

unbound said:
What method do the quorom and FP use to verify this?

Direct revelation to govern the church will only come through the prophet and president of the church

I don't know the exact specifics, but I understand that when they gather and discuss the revelation, they all must individualy also recieve confirmation through prayer and all must unanimously agree and accept it.

It then is presented to the general body of the church for acceptance.

Any LDS out there please correct me if I'm wrong.

Tom

gort · Feb 20, 2004

TW quote:

I don't know the exact specifics, but I understand that when they gather and discuss the revelation, they all must individualy also recieve confirmation through prayer and all must unanimously agree and accept it.

It then is presented to the general body of the church for acceptance.

Hello,

I'm really not tring to nitpick, but don't it seem odd that man now determines whether revelations are acceptable or not.

Is there any such comparison from the Bible that people sort of picked and choosed that which would be adhered to?

And keep it to those who wanted to do as God said. Not to those who rebelled and such.

thanx

<><

fatboys · Feb 20, 2004

twhite982 said:
I would too.

I didn't go on a mission, so maybe Ammon can answer this.

Maybe the black investigators were told that we don't have an absolute reason why, but the statement Ammon made was a possible explanation of the ban. Since its human nature to want to know the answers and not be left guessing.

But since we don't absolutely know why the ban was imposed, this COULD be the reason and therefore true. Scripture and official doctrine doesn't clarify that, so whether its true or not, in my mind its speculation

I agree that Jesus clarified why the man was born blind.

My point as I stated in my last post

This idea had apparently been understood by his disciples and the Jewish leaders that questioned the man(which disciples would be nice to know) and taught from someone in authority, which I assume were the Jewish leaders of the day.

FB: I was on a mission before the ban was lifted. I taught blacks, and we were never told what to say to them. When they asked, I told them I did not know why, but gave my own version which did not have anthing to do with being less blessed in heaven. If they were serious, then they continued with the lessons, and the spirit told them that these teachings were of God. They never looked back. And a few years later, they were able to hold the priesthood, and receive even more blessings.

twhite982 · Feb 20, 2004

daneel said:
Hello,

I'm really not tring to nitpick, but don't it seem odd that man now determines whether revelations are acceptable or not.

Is there any such comparison from the Bible that people sort of picked and choosed that which would be adhered to?

And keep it to those who wanted to do as God said. Not to those who rebelled and such.

thanx

<><

Daneel you've misunderstood me.

Its not a council to discuss which points stay and which go. Its to get confirmation from God that the revelation given to the prophet is from God and not just opinion.

The general church body has the same responsibility to get the same confirmation of the revelation.

This keeps an accountability for all.

It seems strange that you raise this point:

Is there any such comparison from the Bible that people sort of picked and choosed that which would be adhered to?

since I understand that this is basically how the books of the Bible were compiled and decided on which books were to be included in the cannon and which were to be left out.

Anyways, I am grateful for this method of verifying revelation from the Lord as I believe ALL men make mistakes. I feel more comfortable when 15 can unanimously agree and present the revelation also to the general body for acceptance.

Tom

skylark1 · Feb 20, 2004

I would appreciate it if anyone who is LDS would address this question: Is it LDS doctrine that choices made in a pre-mortal existance can affect blessings in this life?

Thanks.

AMMON · Feb 20, 2004

skylark1 said:
I would appreciate it if anyone who is LDS would address this question: Is it LDS doctrine that choices made in a pre-mortal existance can affect blessings in this life?

Thanks.

As I understand it, yes . . . but you already knew my view on this.

twhite982 · Feb 20, 2004

fatboys said:
FB: I was on a mission before the ban was lifted. I taught blacks, and we were never told what to say to them. When they asked, I told them I did not know why, but gave my own version which did not have anthing to do with being less blessed in heaven. If they were serious, then they continued with the lessons, and the spirit told them that these teachings were of God. They never looked back. And a few years later, they were able to hold the priesthood, and receive even more blessings.

I guess it all depends on your MTC instructor.

Tom

Met with the Missionaries?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

In awesome wonder

LATTER-DAY SAINT

In awesome wonder

Well-Known Member

In awesome wonder

Well-Known Member

ChileanElder

LATTER-DAY SAINT

Well-Known Member

In awesome wonder

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

pedantric

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

In awesome wonder

LATTER-DAY SAINT

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency