h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hey,no need to apologise at all.

The anger was obvious, but I can only guess what has caused it. When you talk about indoctrination and conditioning one can only assume that perhaps the Doctrine of Free Agency was not lived or applied in you home.

As a parent the responsibility rest with you to teach the Gospel to your children. Unfortunately we are not all very good teachers. Sometimes we impose our will - with our children's best interest at heart - to protect them, rather than allow them to choose and learn for themselves. Ironically, as I mentioned earlier, the withdrawal of Free Agency was what Lucifer advocated!!

It is a fine line to draw and hard to get right as a parent letting their children grow up and be responsible for their own choices.

One of the first steps I had to take in my own life was having to forgive my parents for being angry with me for not living up to their expectations in how they viewed "success" (career, status etc.- they are not church members) Eventually we have rebuilt the relationship and get on fine, but it took a lot of work and quite a bit of talking through to address the issues.

Good luck with everything and if you do want another place to ask questions, feel free.

I've just been reading through some of these posts (not all of them) and have found that there are some very strong views to say the least. To non-Mormons I'd say chill! It's OK! No Mormon will inflict any harm upon you. They are generally nice people and make good neighbours. Nowadays, they like black people and only have one wife. OK? To my fellow Mormonites I would say that there were some pretty dodgy episodes in early church history. We need to be honest about it, not sweep it under the carpet but be honest and open and look at it in new ways. This is perhaps a more healthy way of looking at the history of our faith and more honest. We are the 'true' faith after all.

Let me start by suggesting what most preidents of the church have suggested, that is that not everything that a prophet does and says is inspired or perfect! Whe are given tgothg in order to decern between God and Mammon are we not? when it comes to the issue of the blacks and the priesthood we need to ask ourselves, 'was it truly inspired?' (I'm white by the way). I'm not saying that it wasn't inspired, I'm merely suggesting that we try and be reasonable and look at things in new ways.

Where is the revelation that says that black men could not hold the priesthood? There isn't one. Check the D&C.Nor have we been given a reason as to why this policy was in place.Do you think that it is possible for the church to adopt policies based upon social pressures and ideologies of the time? Does everything have to be inspired?

To be fair, Mormons have always allowed black people to attend church services whereas most other Christian groups in the 19th century shunned them. The problem with Mormonism was that they waited so long to put it right! I believe that the decision to give black people the priesthood in 1978 was inspired but I think it could've been inspired if it was given 50 years before or 100 years before.

Consider the words of the prophet, Pres Hinckley speaking on 60 minutes with Mike Wallace.

MW: From 1830 to 1978, blacks could not become priests in the Mormon church. Right?

GBH: That's correct.

MW: Why?

GBH: Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way. [cut]

What is interesting about this i that President Hinckley suggests that the priesthood was denied to the black man 'the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way.' He didn't say 'because it was inspired'.

He then says...

MW: Church policy had it that blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, "Cain slew his brother, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."

GBH: It's behind us. Look, that's behind us. Don't worry about those little flecks of history.

The episode is descibed as a 'fleck' of history.

Now Mike Wallace asks why men only can hold the priesthood.

GBH: Men hold the priesthood in this church.

MW: Why?

GBH: Because God stated that it should be so. That was the revelation to the church. That was the way it was set forth.

'God said it should be so', compared to 'leaders interpretation' and 'flecks of history'.

I attend church. I subscribed to the revealed doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints and have one so all my life and will continue to do so. But I don't think that everything in church history was perfect and it does us no good to try and present a sanitised version of that history to people not of our faith. To do so is dishonest and also, the availability of information makes it futile.

I propose it to be a much healthier and open practice to look at the history of our faith honestly and with 'new eyes' discussing areas that may be problematic and celebrating that many, many instances of faith and sacrifice.

Cat and Pyrex are you both not 'straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?'
Who cares?

Dudeyone.

I refer to my post on "Teach not Preach".

How can people learn of Christ in the True Spirit when there is contention and they are being baited?

While yes it is true that god put a mark on Cain so that he wouldn't be killed by others, it seems that with the mists of time, whatever the mark was we have forgotten it, or it wasn't passed down to future generations...therefore, to assume or guess that the mark was the color of ones skin really isn't a true and historical fact-only god knows what this mark was and this will not change no matter who you are, what religion you are, what skin color you are, or where you live!!The truth shall set you free!!

Yeah, those darn Baptists and Methodists, where do they get off teaching dark skin was that 'mark of cain'. Add to that just about every other Protestant sect from the 1600's to the 1900's.

Perhaps learning history would be a good first step for you.