It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:58 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 3:35 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:40 am
Posts: 1161
Location: Mesa, Arizona
The 1886 Revelation was said to have been given to President John Taylor, written down by him, some months later, found in his personal papers after his death. This revelation concerned the nature of polygamy and is said to show unequivocally that requirement for polygamy would never be altered or removed.

The 1978 Revelation was said to have been given to President Spencer W. Kimball, and was understood to be the Lord communicating the end of the priesthood ban for Negroes.

The Brighamite branch of the Latter-Day Saint movement holds the position that, although President Taylor may indeed have received the 1886 revelation from 'the Lord' Himself, the body of the church was never presented with it formally, via a process initially conducted in 1835 with the addition of the D&C to LDS canon.

The provenance of the only extant copy of the 1886 Revelation is disputed, but we know the wording, we have some photographic evidence that it was not made up whole-cloth by the polygamists, and the FP of 1933 even seems to accept that it originally came from 'the Lord'. Their position seems to be that the sole reason it is not valid or binding is because President Smith did not present it to the body of the church for a sustaining vote.

But wouldn't this argument also apply to the 1978 revelation?

A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover. And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.

So, what gives? Either the argument used is invalid, and the FLDS have been correct about their practice of polygamy, or the argument is valid, and blacks should still be banned from holding the priesthood.

Yes? No?

_________________
eschew obfuscation

"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 5:35 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:01 am
Posts: 6189
Location: Get ready to feel the THUNDER!
Polygamy is not practiced by the Church nor should it be. Those who upheld the belief that it should be practiced by the Church were gravely mistaken. As the Book of Mormon teaches it is a sin and nearly destroyed the Mormon Church as a result.

The ban on blacks and the Priesthood follow the same pattern. It wasn't from God. It was a man-made, racist evil doctrine that was ended.

So in answer to your question, the FLDS are wrong and Mormons that banned blacks from the priesthood were wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 8:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:40 am
Posts: 1161
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Would you care to address the main point of my post?

The Utah church proclaims that a certain standardized protocol must be followed for a revelation to be binding up the membership. This protocol was not followed for the 1886 revelation, nor the 1978 revelation, yet the church, who disregards the 1886 revelation for this reason appears to accept the 1978 revelation despite the same absence of proper protocol.

If the protocol is truly necessary, the ending of the priesthood ban was done in error. If not, the church has fallen into apostasy by ignoring God's clear will that polygamy is necessary for exaltation.

Is it too much to ask that this God of the Mormons be somewhat consistent?

Next time you see him, Tobin, ask him 'WTF?' for me, will ya?

_________________
eschew obfuscation

"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 10:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 18170
Quote:
A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover.


If you understood revelation as is taught early in the D&C, you would realize that text is not necessary or necessarily given.

Quote:
And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.


This has never been a requirement for canon or doctrine.

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 10:46 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:40 am
Posts: 1161
Location: Mesa, Arizona
bcspace wrote:
Quote:
A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover.


If you understood revelation as is taught early in the D&C, you would realize that text is not necessary or necessarily given.

Quote:
And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.


This has never been a requirement for canon or doctrine.


This article references a statement given by the First Presidency in 1933 which reads, in part:

Quote:
Furthermore, so far as the authorities of the Church are concerned and so far as the members of the Church are concerned, since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the Church or by any council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) presented to and adopted by the Church, which inspired rule in its terms, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.


This is the first presidency of the LDS Church stating that the necessary requirement for a revelation to be considered binding is that it must be "presented to and adopted by the Church..."

So, doesn't it seem, from this statement, that the First Presidency of the Church, at least in 1933, did in fact consider it a requirement?

Am I missing something?

_________________
eschew obfuscation

"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 1:34 am 
tired, less active investigator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:07 am
Posts: 6989
Location: Hungary
beefcalf wrote:
Is it too much to ask that this God of the Mormons be somewhat consistent?


Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions.

For example, the word consistent ...

_________________
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 2:36 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:01 am
Posts: 6189
Location: Get ready to feel the THUNDER!
beefcalf wrote:
Would you care to address the main point of my post?
The Utah church proclaims that a certain standardized protocol must be followed for a revelation to be binding up the membership. This protocol was not followed for the 1886 revelation, nor the 1978 revelation, yet the church, who disregards the 1886 revelation for this reason appears to accept the 1978 revelation despite the same absence of proper protocol.
If the protocol is truly necessary, the ending of the priesthood ban was done in error. If not, the church has fallen into apostasy by ignoring God's clear will that polygamy is necessary for exaltation.
Is it too much to ask that this God of the Mormons be somewhat consistent?
Next time you see him, Tobin, ask him 'WTF?' for me, will ya?
Both teachings were in error and were corrected and ended. There isn't some magic seal, statement, standard protocol, or circle dance the prophet needs to do to put an end to it. It was ended. I don't know why you are hung up on some technicality that nobody cares about but you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:17 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:52 am
Posts: 7306
beefcalf wrote:
A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover. And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.


The problem is that there never was a 1978 Revelation.

SWK, hounded by government treasury officials And newspaper stories about teams boycotting BYU over the ban, decided to take action.
Firstly, he tasked his Apostles with the job of finding scriptural precedent for or against the ban. Then, when it was identified that there was no scriptural or doctrinal basis for the ban in the first place SWK took the decision to reverse it.

SWK went to God and prayed to communicate the decision he was taking to reverse the ban, and if He (God) did not agree then He should show SWK a sign. All God did throughout this process was to stay silent on the matter and the rest is history.

What's that scripture about asking God for signs...?

_________________
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:57 pm
Posts: 4232
Location: Lakeside
Tobin wrote:
Both teachings were in error and were corrected and ended. There isn't some magic seal, statement, standard protocol, or circle dance the prophet needs to do to put an end to it. It was ended. I don't know why you are hung up on some technicality that nobody cares about but you.

Tobin,

The process you are describing here for the development and implementation of policy is that of a secular organization.

If the LDS Church makes its way by trial and error, as you have described, what need does it have for God?

Is it not God's job to lead the Church so as to make it more honorable, trustworthy and reliable than a secular organization?

What happened to the direct communication with a divine being in the management and operation of the church that is the only representative of the eternal and everlasting gospel on the Earth?

What happened to the God whose job it was to never let The Prophet lead the Church astray?

Starting with "I see but one" Joseph Smith, and continuing pretty much unbroken through "Mountain Meadow" Young, "Manifesto" Woodruff, "I don't know that we teach that" Hinkley and "Prop 8" Monson, the LDS Church has a terrible track record in terms of the honesty and integrity of its leaders.

"Lying for the Lord" is a practice that has been openly discussed and practiced by Church leaders and, as a consequence, is widely associated with the LDS Church.

When you make the kind of claims you have so far on this thread, one is left to wonder if you really have a fact-based understanding of the way in which the LDS Church is lead and operated.

_________________
“But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong.”—Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Vol 6, Page 32


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:54 am 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 11970
Location: Anywhere but Nuanced Hill
In response to bcspace's apologetic dance...
beefcalf wrote:
This is the first presidency of the LDS Church stating that the necessary requirement for a revelation to be considered binding is that it must be "presented to and adopted by the Church..."

So, doesn't it seem, from this statement, that the First Presidency of the Church, at least in 1933, did in fact consider it a requirement?

Am I missing something?

Only that bcspace has once again pulled rank on the FP.

_________________
The truth doesn't hurt unless it ought to. B C Forbes

words lose their original meaning in Mormonism when the evidence doesn't support the definition of the word. Craig Paxton

So as white lard is pumped into a Twinkie, God so fills your soul with joy? Gadianton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
beefcalf wrote:
The 1886 Revelation was said to have been given to President John Taylor, written down by him, some months later, found in his personal papers after his death. This revelation concerned the nature of polygamy and is said to show unequivocally that requirement for polygamy would never be altered or removed.

The 1978 Revelation was said to have been given to President Spencer W. Kimball, and was understood to be the Lord communicating the end of the priesthood ban for Negroes.

The Brighamite branch of the Latter-Day Saint movement holds the position that, although President Taylor may indeed have received the 1886 revelation from 'the Lord' Himself, the body of the church was never presented with it formally, via a process initially conducted in 1835 with the addition of the D&C to LDS canon.

The provenance of the only extant copy of the 1886 Revelation is disputed, but we know the wording, we have some photographic evidence that it was not made up whole-cloth by the polygamists, and the FP of 1933 even seems to accept that it originally came from 'the Lord'. Their position seems to be that the sole reason it is not valid or binding is because President Smith did not present it to the body of the church for a sustaining vote.

But wouldn't this argument also apply to the 1978 revelation?

A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover. And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.

So, what gives? Either the argument used is invalid, and the FLDS have been correct about their practice of polygamy, or the argument is valid, and blacks should still be banned from holding the priesthood.

Yes? No?


Excellent point. Also note the lack of any revelation for changing the Word of Wisdom, or for banning masturbation.

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:06 pm
Posts: 15049
Location: Sterling, Virginia
beefcalf wrote:
A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover.


That is true. No text has ever been presented.

Quote:
And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.


You are mistaken.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/11/revel ... d?lang=eng

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:58 am 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 11970
Location: Anywhere but Nuanced Hill
Tobin wrote:
beefcalf wrote:
Would you care to address the main point of my post?
The Utah church proclaims that a certain standardized protocol must be followed for a revelation to be binding up the membership. This protocol was not followed for the 1886 revelation, nor the 1978 revelation, yet the church, who disregards the 1886 revelation for this reason appears to accept the 1978 revelation despite the same absence of proper protocol.
If the protocol is truly necessary, the ending of the priesthood ban was done in error. If not, the church has fallen into apostasy by ignoring God's clear will that polygamy is necessary for exaltation.
Is it too much to ask that this God of the Mormons be somewhat consistent?
Next time you see him, Tobin, ask him 'WTF?' for me, will ya?
Both teachings were in error and were corrected and ended. There isn't some magic seal, statement, standard protocol, or circle dance the prophet needs to do to put an end to it. It was ended. I don't know why you are hung up on some technicality that nobody cares about but you.

It simply is a search for the measuring rod of Mormon god's imparted knowledge. The Brethren shovel all the s*** they speak as god-given, until they have to retract it because it is later proven wrong. So why should ANYTHING that the Brethren say be given so much as the time of day? The Brethren are all just ass-chatting and claiming Mormon god told them those words--at least until they have to retract them later.

_________________
The truth doesn't hurt unless it ought to. B C Forbes

words lose their original meaning in Mormonism when the evidence doesn't support the definition of the word. Craig Paxton

So as white lard is pumped into a Twinkie, God so fills your soul with joy? Gadianton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 7:09 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:06 pm
Posts: 15049
Location: Sterling, Virginia
Here's how the church describes the process of canonization (accepting new scripture):

Quote:
4. Scripture becomes part of the standard works through the process of canonization.

■ Explain the meaning of canon, and describe the process by which scripture is canonized.

“A word of Greek origin, originally meaning ‘a rod for testing straightness,’ now used to denote the authoritative collection of the sacred books used by the true believers in Christ” (Bible Dictionary, “canon,” 630–31).

In the Church, canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known as the standard works, formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine.

The process is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price. Conducting the business of the conference, President Tanner said:

“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote.

“‘At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:

“‘First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith … ; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith … showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world. …’

“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“All those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 29; or Ensign, May 1976, 19). In 1979 these two revelations were moved to the Doctrine and Covenants and became sections 137 and 138.


Harold B. Lee explained, "The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church."(The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.)

So, once again, bcspace is mistaken.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 7:21 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:52 am
Posts: 7306
Runtu wrote:
Harold B. Lee explained, "The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church."(The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.)

So, once again, bcspace is mistaken.


So, unless it has been sustained by the Church it cannot be classed as doctrine...hmmm...I don't recall Christofferson mentioning that when he 'clarified' the position on doctrine at the last conference. The sad reality is the top echelons don't really know themselves so what chance as poor old bcspace got...

_________________
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 7:23 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:06 pm
Posts: 15049
Location: Sterling, Virginia
Drifting wrote:
So, unless it has been sustained by the Church it cannot be classed as doctrine...hmmm...I don't recall Christofferson mentioning that when he 'clarified' the position on doctrine at the last conference. The sad reality is the top echelons don't really know themselves so what chance as poor old bcspace got...


Not exactly. It's not scripture if it's not sustained by the Church. Doctrine can reside in First Presidency statements and proclamations that are not sustained as scripture.

Of course, scripture is automatically doctrine.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 7:48 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
Drifting wrote:
beefcalf wrote:
A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover. And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.


The problem is that there never was a 1978 Revelation.

SWK, hounded by government treasury officials And newspaper stories about teams boycotting BYU over the ban, decided to take action.
Firstly, he tasked his Apostles with the job of finding scriptural precedent for or against the ban. Then, when it was identified that there was no scriptural or doctrinal basis for the ban in the first place SWK took the decision to reverse it.

SWK went to God and prayed to communicate the decision he was taking to reverse the ban, and if He (God) did not agree then He should show SWK a sign. All God did throughout this process was to stay silent on the matter and the rest is history.


What's that scripture about asking God for signs...?


Can you provide me with some links or source for further reading on this topic?

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 7:50 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:52 am
Posts: 7306
Buffalo wrote:
Can you provide me with some links or source for further reading on this topic?


http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#eventsleadingto1978

There's a lot about it on here ^

Quote:
{Le Grand}Richards: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it is hard to get leaders that don't have negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it. He asked each one of us of the twelve if we would pray--and we did--that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office--individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, see--so he interviewed each one of us, personally to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood. Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group circle. and then held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children.

And then the next Thursday--we meet every Thursday--the presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement--to see how we'd feel about it--and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it--the Twelve and the first Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Peterson, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our president, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Peterson, and read him the article, and he (Peterson) approved of it.

Walters: There wasn't a special document as a "revelation", that he had wrote down?

Richards: We discussed it in our meeting. What else should we say besides that announcement? And we decided that that was sufficient; that no more needed to be said.


Quote:
That is, the First Presidency and the Twelve decided to tell the Lord that they were going to change the policy regarding blacks and the LDS priesthood "unless He gave them a sign to the contrary."In the absence of any sign, they changed the policy.
No one officially coming over from Salt Lake City to the MTC at the time denied this story.  It was later that I heard the word "revelation" actually used in conjunction with it.  But Elder Le Grand Richard's statements in his interview with Chris Vlachos and Wesley P. Walters supports this version of the events.

_________________
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 10:34 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:57 pm
Posts: 4232
Location: Lakeside
Bump for Tobin.

_________________
“But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong.”—Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Vol 6, Page 32


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 10:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
Drifting wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Can you provide me with some links or source for further reading on this topic?


http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#eventsleadingto1978

There's a lot about it on here ^

Quote:
{Le Grand}Richards: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it is hard to get leaders that don't have negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it. He asked each one of us of the twelve if we would pray--and we did--that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office--individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, see--so he interviewed each one of us, personally to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood. Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group circle. and then held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children.

And then the next Thursday--we meet every Thursday--the presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement--to see how we'd feel about it--and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it--the Twelve and the first Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Peterson, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our president, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Peterson, and read him the article, and he (Peterson) approved of it.

Walters: There wasn't a special document as a "revelation", that he had wrote down?

Richards: We discussed it in our meeting. What else should we say besides that announcement? And we decided that that was sufficient; that no more needed to be said.


Quote:
That is, the First Presidency and the Twelve decided to tell the Lord that they were going to change the policy regarding blacks and the LDS priesthood "unless He gave them a sign to the contrary."In the absence of any sign, they changed the policy.
No one officially coming over from Salt Lake City to the MTC at the time denied this story.  It was later that I heard the word "revelation" actually used in conjunction with it.  But Elder Le Grand Richard's statements in his interview with Chris Vlachos and Wesley P. Walters supports this version of the events.


Thanks very much!

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Revelations of 1886 and 1978
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 1:11 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:01 am
Posts: 6189
Location: Get ready to feel the THUNDER!
DrW wrote:
Tobin wrote:
Both teachings were in error and were corrected and ended. There isn't some magic seal, statement, standard protocol, or circle dance the prophet needs to do to put an end to it. It was ended. I don't know why you are hung up on some technicality that nobody cares about but you.

The process you are describing here for the development and implementation of policy is that of a secular organization.
The LDS Church is a man-made organization comprised of men leading it. I'm sure there are Mormons on here that think otherwise, but honestly you can't explain any of the many changes in it unless you realize that.
DrW wrote:
If the LDS Church makes its way by trial and error, as you have described, what need does it have for God?
Again, learning and adjusting is part of being human. The idea that the LDS Church has it all correct and is run by "God" is laughable. There is a great deal that is wrong with it and ignoring that and not making changes to it is silly. In fact, the problem with the LDS Church is it isn't adaptable enough IMO.
DrW wrote:
Is it not God's job to lead the Church so as to make it more honorable, trustworthy and reliable than a secular organization?
No. The LDS Church is just an assocation of members where you can discuss similar doctrines, help one another, and so on. It is not God's job to force people to be perfect or even make good choices.
DrW wrote:
What happened to the direct communication with a divine being in the management and operation of the church that is the only representative of the eternal and everlasting gospel on the Earth?
It is always there, but it is hardly something the LDS Church has a lock on. The responsibility of direct communication is between us and God. The whole reason that the LDS Church was formed in the first place was because preachers were teaching whatever they "felt" was best instead of encouraging their listeners (and they themselves) to speak with God directly instead. The LDS Church is a perfectly fine Church if you realize that since you can filter out what is true and dispose of what is false. However, it is also not "perfectly" fine when it strays from this ideal and encourages people to listen to only LDS Church preachers instead (which has happened).
DrW wrote:
What happened to the God whose job it was to never let The Prophet lead the Church astray?
That is just a false doctrine promoted by the brethren and is just silly. God won't lead you astray - that is not true for any man.
DrW wrote:
Starting with "I see but one" Joseph Smith, and continuing pretty much unbroken through "Mountain Meadow" Young, "Manifesto" Woodruff, "I don't know that we teach that" Hinkley and "Prop 8" Monson, the LDS Church has a terrible track record in terms of the honesty and integrity of its leaders.
"Lying for the Lord" is a practice that has been openly discussed and practiced by Church leaders and, as a consequence, is widely associated with the LDS Church.
When you make the kind of claims you have so far on this thread, one is left to wonder if you really have a fact-based understanding of the way in which the LDS Church is lead and operated.
You are under the impression that the LDS Church is something it is not. The same can be said of the men that lead it. They are fallible men, and as human as anyone else and not God. And the LDS Church is only true as far as it leads people to God. It is also false when those in it teach and lead people away from God and doing what is right. The point of the whole thing is to get you to speak with God yourself and use your good reason and sense to make up you own mind. Mormons that rely on others to do the thinking for them (or the speaking with God) are just fooling themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abaddon, Google [Bot], Spektical, Yahoo [Bot] and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group