Comments on: Patience and Faith

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Good points, Larry. It took a faith shattering experience for me to realise that the Lord does things on His own time. He has concern for me and my welfare, but He extends His hand of mercy when he feels the time is right. Not when I think the time is right.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

For the record: I'm grateful to have been raised in the post-OD 2 era (I was born a few years before it was issued).

Being raised in the correlated/sanitized era allows for testimony growth without significant challange (until the flood gates open). For my generation, I'm not sure that we really know how to patiently wait for the Lord.

And to your question about the church changing it's position to accomodate public sentiment: Justin B.'s (Mormon Wasp) recent post on birth rate and birth control would suggest that at least on some issues the church does.

By: Smiles

Smiles — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I remember being a brand new member when the church gave the “blacks” the Priesthood. As a very new convert and trying to absorb all the new rules and do’s and don’t’s I did ask why they didn’t have the Priesthood already and to this day no one ever answered me to my satisfaction. But I remember the very next Sunday there were several new families in our ward that had been waiting to be baptized so they could get the Priesthood as well. I didn’t understand that either. Could you not be a member without holding the Priesthood?

I am a perfectionist.. hmmm wonder where Kim got that from… and one of the things I have had to struggle with the almost 27 years of my membership was and still is that Heavenly Father works on his own time frame and 99.99% of the time it never matches mine. When they handed out patience as a virtue in the Spirit World I must have been in the lineup to the library reading a book or on the playing field watching hockey :)

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

One of the traits I find most intriguing among people, myself included,in and out of the Church is the inability to appreciate that there are always at least two opinions that can be held on any particular issue. Where issues like Blacks and the priesthood were never a real concern of mine while the restriction was in place, my friend was of a different mind-set.
The problem was and is, if I had really been self-aware would I have felt the same way she did or would I have remained only a dogmatist without any real answers but smug in my beliefs. Or was there a third option of feeling the pain, but knowing that the Lord was in charge and He would perform His work in His own time?
This is a dilemma that I wrestle with within myself now that controversy comes up with regard to issues I care deeply about (having become more self-aware) and the position of the Church.
As you are probably aware, Smiles, a number of years ago there was a big hue and cry over VLT machines. The Church became heavily involved and eventually the anti-VLT lobby won - in the short term.
At the same time the issue of child porn and sexual abuse came to the fore because of a court decision in B.C.. Nothing from the Church.
Now we are faced with an attack on the definition of a family. A lobby was organized by some members and they wanted to get the Church's approval and support. A definitive "no" came down from the powers that be.
My dilemma came in trying to reconcile the huge effort, centred around the Church, re: VLT machines and the stony silence that surrounded more important issues in my mind.
So when we talk of faith and patience, am I being patiently impatient that the Church will come to the rescue of issues I think are important, am I smug in my rightness, or am I really exercising faith and patience and trusting the Lord and His time frame and His handling of the issues through the appointed priesthood authority?

By: Smiles

Smiles — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Larry I am sorry but I do not know what these VLT machines are that you are talking about. Is this an American thing or shortened acronym for something else? I think, and this is my opinion only, that when the church is faced with an issue that seems to be world wide they not only have to think about what the members will think of their Leaders for the stand they take or not take, but also they have to think of how the world itself will perceive their actions. Like in every newspaper article that pertains to a member….. they are always labeled as “the Mormon”.. did this or that. When someone else does something they are not labeled “the Jew or the Catholic or the Protestant, or the Muslem” etc. THe world watches us and I am sure that is a big reason why out leaders seem to sit on their hands while we the people, as you put it, impatiently patiently wait for a decision. I am also positive that our great Leaders when they pray have their prayers answered on the Lord’s time and not their own. But that was a good thought provoking issue. My husband can always tell when I have been on Kim’s site cause I will be bugging him about something or other and he’ll say you were arguing theology with Kim again weren’t you lolol. I firmly FIRMLY believe that you learn by listening to ALL thoughts and ideas and then making you rown mind.. hmmm wonder where I heard that from before…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This is a tough issue. As I look back over my own life I'm begining to see the wisdom in certain things happening that at one time I thought were calculated to bring about certain ends. When, in fact, they did NOT bring about those ends I began to think that perhaps I had forfeited my birthright and lost the blessings. Now with a little hindsight I'm begining to see that they were calculated to shape me in ways that I did not comprehend at the time but make a lot of sense to me now. My guess is that everyone has had or will have similar experiences in their own lives. If so, can we assume that this sort of thing happens on a macro-level? On a church-wide level?

For the sake of argument, if we side with the idea that the priesthood was made available to all worthy males right on schedule according to the Lord's will then let's consider a few factors: what if the change had come sooner--say by forty years? How would that have effected the church? Was the overall membership REALLY ready for such a change? Was the world around us ready for such a change? How would the south have faired in the U.S.? What if the change came 20 years sooner--right down the middle of cultural upheavel? Would this have sent a signal that the church embraced everything that was going on in the sixties? We can certainly see the wisdom in the change not occuring any later than it did.

For me, this issue has been a source of deep frustration as I grew up with many black friends. But even so, it may be that over time I will look back and begin to see that the Lord is the perfect husbandman, that He knows precisely how, when and where to prune His vineyard.

On the other hand, it's possible that we may have slung a little mud in our own faces (speaking of the church collectively) by allowing the cultural influences of the world to dictate policy in the church to such an extreme so as to lead us to be exclusionary in our efforts to exalt all of God's children. It's quite an ugly thing to contemplate--I hope there's a better answer.

Jack

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“what if the change had come sooner–say by forty years?”

It hadâ€”one hundred forty years sooner.

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Anonymous,

That was on my mind as I wrote this thread. Good points.

Kim - I believe that even though there were the few that did receive it, it was abandoned as a practice almost immediately.

Smiles - VLT's are video lottery terminals that are placed in bars and other establishments so patrons don't have to go to casinos to gamble. The gov't receives revenues (taxes) from these.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It wasn't abandoned immediately. Blacks (at least some) were receiving the priesthood at least until the 1930s.

Eljah Abel is the most famous of the black who held the priesthood. He served three missions for the Church, the year before he died. He died at the end of 1884.

His son Enoch was ordained an elder in 1900, Elijah's grandson Elijah Jr. was ordained an elder in 1935.

As well, the popular notion og witholding the priesthood from the black didn't happen until 1847, three years after Joseph Smith died and 11 years after Elijah Sr was ordained an elder.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Kim,

I understand that you're making a rhetorical statement, but it is begging some big questions.

Are you implying that putting an end to the blacks receiving the priesthood was uninspired? I personally believe that such is entirely possible. However, those who would like to believe that such is the only plausible solution to the puzzle are in the unfortunate position of having to prove a negative. You have to prove that Brigham Young was speaking only as a man when he declared that blacks were not to receive the priesthood--which he did on a number of occasions even invoking the name of the Savior as a seal on at least one such occasion. I think we can easily believe that most of the reasoning behind such a policy was fuel by the concurrent idealogies of the day. However, there still exists the possibility that it may have been the best thing to do for a time--regardless of the silly reasoning that some may have used to justify it. Now I'm not suggesting that it would have been wrong for the blacks to have the priesthood per se, but that perhaps the church (and the world at large for that matter) simply was not ready for that kind of conjoining of races. So, inspired or not, to me it seems to boil to a racial problem regardless, which sadly, is not a wonderful commentary on the human race.

Jack