7up reminded me of our friend Robert Millet

[Sparko]

No. Paul was giving a pep talk, not boasting to his opponents.

No, he was writing to the Corinthians, to encourage them yes, but also he boasted that everything they believed was plainly written and not hidden. Like in the intro to the letter:

2 Cor 1:12 Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with integrity and godly sincerity. We have done so, relying not on worldly wisdom but on God’s grace. 13 For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, 14 as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

[rogue06]

You see, Pig. I'm not sure that's what Cow Poke was going for. I interpreted it as him giving an example of how to own to your denomination's dirty laundry so to speak. That's at least what it looked like to me.

Same here.

[Cow Poke]

When you add "unlike you"? Yes, IMO.

And if somebody asked me, "hey, aren't you Southern Baptists a bunch of racists?", I would begin by TOTALLY admitting that there was rampant racism, and many in our denomination bought into that -- it was wrong, and we denounce it as such. I wouldn't try to pretend that it didn't happen, and I COULD honestly say that it was never a "doctrine" of our Church ... just rampant stupidity and bigotry. The TRUTH works SO well.

I am slightly uncomfortable with this line of argumentation. It seems sorta "holier than thou" somehow.

"unlike you"?

[One Bad Pig]

"unlike you"?

You're right, you didn't say that. OTOH, in the context of the thread, I saw it as implied. You appeared to be bringing it up in contrast to Mormon practices.

[Cow Poke]

You're right, you didn't say that.

Nor did I intend it.

OTOH, in the context of the thread, I saw it as implied.

I think that's because you looked for it, OBP. I don't know what I did to you, but I think you tend to read my posts with a certain "slant".

You appeared to be bringing it up in contrast to Mormon practices.

Well, yes, but I think it's a legitimate contrast. I don't know how that makes it "boasting".

And I REALLY think this little "internal squabble" should be moved to the psych ward.

[seven7up]

My point was that I make NO EXCUSES whatsoever for our obvious error in being racist.

It isn't that simple.

It would be like people accusing the God of the Old Testament of commanding a class structure with the minority who control the religious lives of all the other tribes because only Levites could hold the priesthood. It gives the appearance that Moses just wanted to do his brother a solid by keeping power and control in his own family, by bestowing that right only on the sons of Aaron. This appears to be worse than racism, it is domination by an even more stringent lineage requirement; keeping it only in the family.

-7up

[Cow Poke]

It isn't that simple.

Yes, it actually is.

It would be like people accusing the God of the Old Testament of commanding a class structure with the minority who control the religious lives of all the other tribes because only Levites could hold the priesthood. It gives the appearance that Moses just wanted to do his brother a solid by keeping power and control in his own family, by bestowing that right only on the sons of Aaron. This appears to be worse than racism, it is domination by an even more stringent lineage requirement; keeping it only in the family.

-7up

This assumes, of course, that your false prophets were actually HEARING from God, rather than just doing the same dumb stuff everybody else was doing and being too dishonest to admit it.

[seven7up]

7up: It would be like people accusing the God of the Old Testament of commanding a class structure with the minority who control the religious lives of all the other tribes because only Levites could hold the priesthood. It gives the appearance that Moses just wanted to do his brother a solid by keeping power and control in his own family, by bestowing that right only on the sons of Aaron. This appears to be worse than racism, it is domination by an even more stringent lineage requirement; keeping it only in the family.

This assumes, of course, that your false prophets were actually HEARING from God, rather than just doing the same dumb stuff everybody else was doing and being too dishonest to admit it.

When it comes to the priesthood ban in the LDS church, we actually don't have scripture or a written or even described revelation from God where it explains that blacks in the modern church were not supposed to hold those offices. In fact, Joseph Smith DID ordain blacks to the priesthood. Looking back historically, there isn't a good explanation of why that stopped.

You appeared to be bringing it up in contrast to Mormon practices.

If we want to bring in dirty laundry, we can just bring up the "laundry list" of difficult things that people have to try to explain from, for example, the Law of Moses.

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 says:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

On the surface, this can be a very difficult passage to try and explain. "You mean that a raped woman now has to live with the person who violated her? That is awful."

Then we find Christians who, like the topic of this thread, appear to be finding "Robert Millet -esque" , approaches to deal with the subject.

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012...testament.html

And when it comes to the priesthood services, we must then try to explain why someone who is small of stature "a dwarf" is prohibited from practicing the priesthood even if they were among the sons of Aaron:

Leviticus 21:17-24
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

So, essentially anybody who wasn't ugly could perform priesthood duties. I actually find this much more difficult to explain to skeptics, because it is coming as revelation directly from God.

-7up

[One Bad Pig]

If we want to bring in dirty laundry, we can just bring up the "laundry list" of difficult things that people have to try to explain from, for example, the Law of Moses.

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 says:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

On the surface, this can be a very difficult passage to try and explain. "You mean that a raped woman now has to live with the person who violated her? That is awful."

However, the difficulty is only on the surface. Cultural context easily solves the conundrum.

Then we find Christians who, like the topic of this thread, appear to be finding "Robert Millet -esque" , approaches to deal with the subject.

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012...testament.html

How is that "Millet-esque"?

And when it comes to the priesthood services, we must then try to explain why someone who is small of stature "a dwarf" is prohibited from practicing the priesthood even if they were among the sons of Aaron:

Leviticus 21:17-24
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

So, essentially anybody who wasn't ugly could perform priesthood duties. I actually find this much more difficult to explain to skeptics, because it is coming as revelation directly from God.

-7up

Er, no. Anyone who wasn't physically deformed could perform priesthood duties - just like only an unblemished sacrifice was acceptable. Why is this a difficult concept?

[Cow Poke]

When it comes to the priesthood ban in the LDS church, we actually don't have scripture or a written or even described revelation from God where it explains that blacks in the modern church were not supposed to hold those offices. In fact, Joseph Smith DID ordain blacks to the priesthood. Looking back historically, there isn't a good explanation of why that stopped.

Actually, I'm well aware of the fact that Smith was nowhere NEAR as big a bigot as some of your subsequent "prophets". I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of examples of him treating blacks much better than other whites of his time. Perhaps it's time, once again, for you to throw BY under the bus, along with a number of your church leaders.

Source: politicususa.com

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be" (ibid., 10:110; emphasis added)

“But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332

Had I anything to do with the Negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 270; History of the Church, 5: 218; emphasis added).


"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. "Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel [the Mormon Church] has been similarly directed.

"We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine. "Faithfully yours,

[signed]

George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay

The First Presidency

© Copyright Original Source

As the article states, that's your church's highest authority, leaving no gray areas.

[tabibito]

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 says:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Awk! - who dreamt that translation up? The penalty for rape was death. "seize and lay with" doesn't mean rape.

[Cow Poke]

Awk! - who dreamt that translation up? The penalty for rape was death. "seize and lay with" doesn't mean rape.

It appears to be the NIV

Source: Deu 22:28-29 NIV

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

© Copyright Original Source