What do you think about this statement President McKay said about Priesthood responsibility and the Constitution?
“Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world which this Church should more United in than upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States.
If members of the Melchizedek Priesthood allow the U.S. Constitution to be destroyed, they not only forfeit their rights to the Priesthood, but to a place in the highest degree of glory as well.” - The Instructor, February 1956
I think it was a great talk for people living in the 1950’s…
I personally would rather listen to what the current prophet has said to help guide me through these weird days.
Yep, let’s pick and choose which scriptures and prophets we listen to. That is a unifying philosophy. One prophet for this and one prophet for that and another prophet for something else. Are they prophets or just decent men whose words have “good through dates.”
Our greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the Church.
The Lord warns that those who ignore the words of the living prophets will fall (see Doctrine and Covenants 1:14–16)
So let’s forget about what Joseph Smith did and say too. We will just start our own Church, change the doctrine and ordinances. Just because we are to listen to our current Prophet, doesn’t mean that what past Prophets and Apostles said.
Has our current Prophet said anything differently? No.
I sincerely doubt that evil conditions here are much different 2,000 years ago or 200 years ago or 30 years ago or now. If what is said now by President Nelson or the current apostles are better for today than any of the other previous prophets or apostles then I think I am very concerned, indeed.
It just irritates me when Floyd starts in saying that past Prophets should never be followed in what they said or did. Obviously things change as the people and conditions change. But, current Prophet and apostles quote past prophets, apostles and non-member people. I’ve heard nothing to date that suggests what President McKay said is any less valid today concerning our Constitution and country.
Once again you are full of BS. I never said that, what I said is that the comment from President McKay was good for those in the 1950’s but I believe that people should put more focus on what our current prophet says.
I actually provided a quote to that affect from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints websites that backs up my comment.
Should we focus on what Brigham Young said and did as a Prophets towards blacks?
Should we focus on what President Smith said that all women should not work outside the home?
Seriously, You proved my point that people get tunnel vision in their views.
So, what exactly about Blacks concerning BY? What he said was put to rest when President Kimball ended any restrictions on Blacks. That’s different with what President McKay said. No President since has changed that view or understanding. Do you even understand this difference? I understand the difference but you always run to the same thing regardless of whether your point has merit or not.
Same with President Smith. When he said this, it was possible for mothers to stay home financially. As time has marched on, not so easy for many families and past Presidents and current have addresses this. But, no one has changed President McKay’s statement. So, it stands. What do you think about what he said?
Floyd is right and wins this argument. Now, let’s move on.
Love seeing the church members split into sides against each other. If you think that Scott and Floyd are very exceptional in their split over gospel opinions you (whoever you are) are sadly mistaken. LDS church no different than any other church.
John, just because you say Floyd wins that is ONE opinion only.
When I first checked into this board, my thoughts were checking in with brothers in the gospel who love BYU like I do. Not a good choice on my part. Sorry I checked into this board again, won’t happen again.
No he does not. I presented the case on why we don’t follow BY and his comments on blacks because we follow the current Prophet in 1978. But, there is no Prophet after President McKay that changed a thing that he said. So, you lose this battle.
Arkie, this is the off-topic section in which these debates belong. And, it’s summer with no sports going on. Aside from that, it is strange that the concept of settled everything is happening. Science, religion and everything.
I agree.``
For DECADES the Prophets (including members of the 12, who are considered prophets) taught from the podium that blacks were not worthy of the Priesthood (although Joseph Smith ordained several blacks to the Priesthood) and held the mark of Cain on them. BY himself allowed Slavery in the state of Utah (Documented) which goes against the gospel principals.
Today, our Prophets has openly stated that the “Mark” is not doctrine, nor is it correct! They have also stated that they can not find one revelation or doctrinal source that supported BY ban on the Priesthood for blacks.
That is why we always focus on our current Prophets and what they say.
Second, have you noticed that the President and the 12 have gone away from such “Statements” as the ones in the past?
Here is a conundrum for you:
The Church leaders teaches you to obey the laws of the land… But yet, they have told missionaries to never ask about legal status of the investigators (Within the US) when it comes to baptism.
So why is it okay to baptize illegal immigrants when the church teaches that to be a good member you must “obey the law of the land”.
Arkie,
I have always said “What I post is what I “believe””, not once have I said that my opinions are absolutely and only way to think.
I believe that the best way to learn the gospel is to have open and frank comments with other members. It helps people learn to search for the truth to reaffirm what they believe.
It also helps people to learn what is “Tradition” and what is “Doctrine”… The recent changes in the Temple ordinances are all based on this issue.
So while I do not agree with Scott opinions, I respect that he has his opinions based on his experiences which is different than mine.
Yep, and still nothing said by any Prophet since McKay about the Priesthood and defending the Constitution. So, why is it you think you can condemn what McKay said or not follow it?
I never condemned McKay nor his comments Scott, I simply said I prefer to listen to the current prophets and what they say to help me guide through today’s madness.
McKay time was during the height of the “red scare” about communism, where everyone thought the communist was going to invade.
I actually sited to you a direct comment from the church that backed up my original comment which I have maintained through this whole thread… “Follow the current Prophet” and you still want to disagree with me.
Compare the tone of President McKay to Elder Oates comments:
What else are faithful Latter-day Saints to do? We must pray for the Lord to guide and bless all nations and their leaders. This is part of our article of faith. Being subject to presidents or rulers of course poses no obstacle to our opposing individual laws or policies. It does require that we exercise our influence civilly and peacefully within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify.
Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution (churchofjesuschrist.org)
I’ll stop at the first paragraph. My question is about the content of his statement. Can you comment on it? What do you think about what he said about the importance of this nation and the Church and our eternal future if you are a Melchizedek Priesthood holder? Because, no Prophet afterwards has commented on it.