Well, the garments are blessed.
Stenar- How so?
I also noticed in the article that David Archuleta is taking a 2 year mission
I jus think before people start trying understand our beliefs they need to
read more and understand things before trying write a paper on our
beliefs.... david is going on his mission to serve his church and heavenly
father .. this not called a mission vaction ..... lds since i was 15
Corvette: Hearing it in Seminary doesn't make it official church doctrine. My
seminary teacher told us there would be a schism in the church when President
died. He said tradition would favor Joseph Fielding Smith but, due to his age,
many would follow Harold B Lee. When we asked who we should support, he said
that he would follow HBL. Seminary and BYU classes are not where we get official
church doctrine.We had black church members in my California ward
and we were never taught that they bore the mark of Cain. If it was official
church doctrine, don't you think it would have been taught despite our
demographics?Finally, whether SWK called it a revelation or not, the
author is certainly correct in saying that it was not a new interpretation of
scripture. In fact, great pains were taken to ensure that the Official
Declaration was in accordance with scripture and doctrine. Victor Ludlow spoke
on this once and he was one of the sources consulted on the issue.We
can quibble over the meaning of the word "revelation" but I believe I
have received revelation as a result of fasting and prayer. It happens.
To;Red Corvette: Statement 2 Clartification to your answer shows
that it was a revelation:On June 9, 1978, the First Presidency
released the following statement: June 8, 1978 To
all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints throughout the world: Dear Brethren: As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we
have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of
the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers.
This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of
the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.
Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church
who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our
brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the
faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have
pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending
many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine
guidance. He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed
that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the
Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine
authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows there from,
including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of
the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.
Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing
all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek
Priesthood to ensure that they meet the established standards for worthiness. We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for
the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the
voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every
blessing of the gospel. Sincerely yours, SPENCER W.
KIMBALL N. ELDON TANNER MARION G. ROMNEY The First
Red Corvette,My seminary teacher taught us that the three wise men
from the Nativity story were Nephites who had traveled across the Bering Strait,
among other things. That's obviously not Church doctrine, since everyone knows
that the Bible doesn't tell us how many wise men there were.Your
point was what, again?
Sigh, the Deseret News isn't doing much better. Your quote, "the church's
old interpretation of Scripture that black men bore the mark of Cain,"
perpetuates the problem. Some church leaders clearly used this argument to
explain the ban to themselves, but I don't think this was official church
It wasnt church doctrine? How does one define church doctrine?
Too funny. Members don't even know what the "official position" of
the church is at times on "sensitive" issues.
Actually, Kami, the "official position" of the Church has always been
very neatly spelled out. If it's not canon, it's not official. No matter what
any bishop, Sunday School teacher, seminary teacher, or even a General Authority
tells you in a book he published, even if he confusingly names it "Mormon
Doctrine," if it hasn't been canonized, it's not official doctrine.
Black Americans received civil rights only 14 years prior to this revelation.
Instead of accusing the Church of racism, perhaps it was our society that was
not ready until 1978.
It is difficult to talk about bona fide LDS doctrine, because the only way to
know if the prophet is right is to ask God yourself. This extends to both modern
and ancient scripture, since all prophets are human and subject to error.
Consider an excerpt from the the Book of Mormon title page: "And now, if
there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things
of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Even
noted apologist Michael Ash argues for this point.
The mormon church by it's own actions has created confusion on what the church
believes. Don't go blaming the the messanger.
Red Corvette ..........I think we found the source of the USA TODAY Artical.
Spoken like somebody who really doesn't understand. and probably doesn't want