Comments about ‘Apologists' comments sought’

This article intrigues me. I applaud a forum that opens discussion to people who are on "square one" concerning the issues. I have a tendency to browse comments about some issues online,and find that SO MANY people who comment display a lack of understanding or maturity, They are not at "square one" on a non-religious level.

Um, isn't this basically "Millennial Star"?

This is news???

I noticed one of the topics to be discussed is gay marriage. Thats silly, there is no such thing. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays can call it anything they like. They can even call it back door politics. But don't call it marriage. It is offensive to me and I believe to God.

You're offensive to me.

By definition, "Apologists Comments" are nothing but propaganda.

Another point for John T. to consider...if he is LDS.
Not so very long...it was taught by the Brethren, and accepted by the general membership of the LDS Church that interracial marriage was an offense before God...although it was not considered to be too offensive for a white man to marry an Asian, or a Mexican, or even a Native American woman, and by doing so, to bless them with the hope of their progeny eventually becoming white and delightsome people.

Jaceg
What brethren (and general membership) you refer to I do not know but I do know that many a a black member and a white member (opposite sex) have been sealed in the temple. Also, your reference to interracial refers to all races not just black and white. I have never heard anything from the first presidency of interracial marriage being offensive. I think if anything the concern was for offspring who would have challenges of identity of race. But those marriage are still between man and women. God's law on this is an eternal law so don't hold your breath that God will change his mind simply to satisfy man's immorality.

Re:Joy

Read the Journal of Discourses. I am not talking about recent teachings, or events. I'm talking about Brigham Young, his peers, and his successors on down the line right up until the events of the Civil Right movement.

Brigham Young even went so far as to suggest that any white man or woman who mixed his seed with that of an 'African Negro' should be subjected to Blood Atonement, and that their 'African Negro' mate should also be used up...along with their mixed race offspring.

BTW...polygamy was also an eternal law...and the Mormons swore mighty oaths that they would rather slit their own throats than to disobey God's commandment regarding plurality of wives. Their resolve didn't last very long at all.

Another point for Joy. I am old enough to recall the discriminatory treatment of blacks within the Church membership before Spencer Kimball claimed revelation that it was time to restore their priesthood blessings. This 'revelation' coincided with the fact Kimball had been subpoenaed to appear in court in regards to the lawsuit filed by the family of a black boyscout who couldn't hold a position of leadership in the troop because he couldn't hold the priesthood.

I also recall that about half of the ward stood up and walked out when it was announced. Many of my relatives living in other states, or serving on missions abroad also witnessed this.

TO JAYEG: It is true that many members walked out or left the Church once it was announced that all worthy brethern of the Church would be allowed to hold the Priesthood. It is also true that Brigham Young so stated what was said. So what!!!!!!!! The point is that the Lord held the Priesthood from Blacks up and until it was announced. It is also true that it had been taught for a number of years prior to that that blacks would someday hold the priesthood but it would be in God's time not man. Pologamy is still an eternal principle, it is just not practiced by the Church at this time. Some of that has to do with the law of the land but the biggest part is that when it was stopped it was no longer needed to assure a righteous generation. If you believe in revelation and continued revelation you would know that principles are taught precept upon precept, here a little there a little. I hold that God never intended the blacks would never hold the priesthood but that it would be sometime before they did. Well over 100 years it took.

Bill it is hard for me to understand how anyone can look at the ever changing theology of Mormonism and continue to believe in it's veracity.

Did you read the words above spoken by Brigham Young? Do they not give you some pause or cause for concern? Any at all ?

Paul

I hope that they can help people to understand that things like preemptive war and putting people in stress positions are sometimes necessary and are not against the Gospel. We need to remember that Captain Moroni put to death prisoners of war who would not commit to the truth. This is far worse than torture, so we know that sometimes it is okay when your dealing with unscrupulous enemies.

Also, I believe the brethren have counseled against intraracial marriage because it is hard enough to have a successful marriage even when you are with someone who is a lot like you. If you marry someone intraracially then you have a lot more problems to deal with, which will make the marriage less likely to succeed in today's world.

Bill 1:48 is correct in everything he said.

I find it interesting how critics can quote word-for-word all of Brigham Young's racist remarks, while at the same time, ignoring the majority of Brigham Young's teachings which discuss love, the atonement, forgiveness and God blessing ALL of his children.

Paul 2:17 said, "Bill it is hard for me to understand how anyone can look at the ever changing theology of Mormonism and continue to believe in it's veracity."

So if we are to say, the only religions in the world with veracity are those which have NEVER changed a single aspect of their teachings, organization or practices, which church would pass the test?

As Bill pointed out, polygamy is still an eternal law in the LDS Church, the only difference being it is currently not practiced on the earth. In fact, the Book of Mormon clarifies this. (Jacob 2:30)

I understand why many look at the pre-1978 LDS priesthood prohibitions with skeptism. But the fact is, it simply wasn't time yet for the change. Many believed it would come and IT DID. Some rejected it, most rejoiced in it.

MUch of whzt Brigham Young wrote was NOT doctrine but his opinion on a subject.

To try and compare the attitudes, the thinking beliefs,practices, traditions,

with today,

Is silly and pointless.

People lived differently and thought differently.

THEY WERE DIFFERENT TIMES!


GOD didn't dump every doctrine on them at once,

but gave it piece by peiece as they were ready.

SO doctrine DIDN'T change, but grew as they became ready and prepared to recieve it and live it.

Word of Wisdon wasn't even given until Joseph was ready to ask about it.

and UNTIL the church was ready to live it, it was just guidance annd council before it became doctrine.

Regarding Blacks, the church and society were not ready for it and theormay have been other reasons as suggested by apostles and prophets.

but the doctrine was extended (NOT CHANGED, but extended to all worthy males of age) when the timewas right, and perhaps when the church and society was ready, or their may be other reasons we do not know.


Doctrine DOESN'T CHANGE but it GROWS and BUILDS line by line, precept by precept as you are ready and worthy to recieve.

Anyone who refers to partial statements from early church leaders to make the LDS church look bad obviously took it straight from some kind of anti-mormon literature in the first place (unless they have WAY too much times on their hands to do such research).

Gee, such a source like anti-mormon literature would NEVER be biased or dishonest, would it? Most anti-mormon literature just references earler anti-mormon literature, which references even earlier anti-moron literature and it's all taken as legitimate--like a big game of telephone whisper. After all, such sources like that MUST be legitimate and dependable, right?

Some of these old statements were never said, some were misquoted just enough to look really bad, some were taken out of context, and some were accurate, but referred to a much earlier time before some doctrines were clarified and subsequent revelations were given to better iron out such issues.

BTW: The church in the 1830s-40s were persecuted in part because some lived in a slave state (Missouri) but wouldn't own slaves and believed all were children of God, not animals or property. One point for the early LDS church and racial relations.

To Boston1975 - so are you saying that quoting presidents of the church = anti-mormon lit? WOW! Does that mean 100 years from now people will quotes attributed to Monson will be considered anti-mormon lit? If quoting old prophets = anti, how is a good mormon supposed to know what to believe.

MIS-quoting Presidents of the Church, MIS-representing what they said, MIS-understanding what was clarified by later revelations.......

That is what was written. Of course, you know that. Intentionally being obtuse doesn't add anything here.

Mormons are sad little peculiar people. When will you get over yourselves?

What you said about the boy scout leadership thing
is not well known. Never heard of that incident.

BUT, the issue of WHO could use the "then New"
Sao Paulo Temple in Brazil was a BIG issue in the mid to late 1970's. There are many many mixed heritages which include African family history in that part of the world.

Spencer W. Kimball always was concerned about the minorities and how they were treated. He did many things for the American Indians (Native Americans) long before he was in top Church leadership.

All the riots and boycotts of BYU ballgames in the late 60's and early 70's did NOT persuade the top Church leaders (then) to change things, BUT the new
South American Temple and A NEW Church President
Kimball DID change things. I do believe that Pres. Kimball DID receive a revelation to change things.

Perhaps if some of the earlier leaders had done the same, with the same "real" intent, things might have "changed" earlier on the time-line.

The priesthood/Black issue seems to have begun on the time-line just a few years before the American Civil War. Joseph Smith did "ordain" Blacks!!