Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,248 Excellent

1 Follower

About CV75

  • Rank
    Creates Man & Woman

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,115 profile views
  1. I am saying we have too little information to say the priesthood restrictions were either divinely inspired or wicked. I don't think they were a trivial decision. My key point is that where there is no light or no agency, there is no accountability and so neither condemnation nor sanction apply (from God at least, and we are asked to follow His example). Some light-limiting circumstances, culture being one of them, served to foster the Great Apostasy and persisted into the Restoration. Other more metaphysical circumstances such as the scope of a dispensation or a prophet's administration serve to circumscribe or impede his agency in relation to what future generations might have otherwise had him decide, enact and perform. Both types of circumstances began to be improved upon in preparation for the Restoration and then in subsequently advancing and accelerating the Restoration, and more often than not when the Lord found it expedient to do so.
  2. All the best men can come to various conclusions. I am not insisting the ban was not racist; I'm insisting that we don't know, and have no way, yet anyway, of telling. I suggested a reasonable, doctrinally-based, non-racist / no-fault means by which it could have come about and what it was, as a 4th alternative to the positions typically expressed (that man, God or the devil founded it, with man and the devil typified as manifesting/venting their racist attitudes or man suffering from ignorance at best, and God having some higher, intentional role for it). If you don't understand it, I would be happy to answer your questions (no strawmen, please). The theories supporting the ban have proven to be doctrinally incorrect. Past racism is condemned but cannot be punished retroactively, and its only proven connection that I can see with the ban is how some individuals may have perceived and leveraged the ban with racist attitudes, with or without an appeal to faulty doctrine. The Restoration rolls out in stages and in this case we are further ahead than we were in 1852, but that is no reason to pretend that we are justified in retroactively condemning the ban and vicariously punish the past Church (and the modern Church up to the point such long-delayed/awaited action is taken) by apologizing or whatever it is the offended might be looking for.
  3. This is an important distinction: the priesthood not being widely available due to transportation, communication and culture, etc. versus not being selectively available through divine edict, with the cultural aspect addressed by policy and the divine edict commanded by revelation. The first set of circumstances (transportation, communication and culture, etc.) led to the Great Apostasy, but the Restoration is all about revelation, with improvements in the first set of circumstances often explained by LDS leaders as being facilitated by more light coming into the world: “We are blessed to live, learn, and serve in this most remarkable dispensation. An important aspect of the fulness that is available to us in this special season is a miraculous progression of innovations and inventions that have enabled and accelerated the work of salvation: from trains to telegraphs to radios to automobiles to airplanes to telephones to transistors to televisions to computers to satellite transmissions to the Internet—and to an almost endless list of technologies and tools that bless our lives. All of these advancements are part of the Lord hastening His work in the latter days.” https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/to-sweep-the-earth-as-with-a-flood?lang=eng Your use of “expediency” caught my attention since I’ve used it in a few of my posts. I think the Lord’s recognition and follow-through on His sense of expediency is an important piece in the restoration puzzle and hastening His work.
  4. Of course, you can get a pat answer by looking up these terms on lds.org… But for the sake of conversation: I think the “unique” aspect is that no other church is part of the continuum of the Restoration. They may be part of the church of the Lamb of God and trace their roots back to Christ, but LDS see our Church as the only authentic entity (the kingdom of God on earth), the “true and living Church,” wherein the revelations come through the authorized priesthood channels and servants of God. Aside from that, it is clear that the faithful of any church will receive revelation as God sees fit for their circumstances, both lay people and their ecclesiastical leaders. “Revelation” can certainly refer to many things, and come in many forms, as you indicated. The common denominator I would say is that they come to the heart and/or mind from God, prompting us to do something that honors Him, blesses His children, otherwise engage in His work, etc. Some might prefer to use words such as: inspiration, epiphany, sign, receiving an answer to a question of/in the mind and heart while in prayer, spiritual confirmation or witness, message, help (as with a math test), etc. I would typically reserve the term “revelation” to a few things, and call these other things by more descriptive terms (attributing them to God when I feel that is the case), but technically I consider them all forms of revelation.
  5. Agreed, "non-essetial" is the wrong term. The fact that it got retracted only proves that it was not "eternal". The timing aspect seems to be part of the roll-out of the dispensation, a time came when it was essential (I used"'expedient" in earlier posts) to stop the ban. So I'd say a better phrase is "formerly irrelevant but about to become disadvantageous."
  6. The Church appears to be doubling down on their explanation of the meaning of the 1978 revelation in the new June Ensign (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/06/commemorating-the-1978-revelation/the-long-promised-day?lang=eng). One interesting statement reads: "The revelation was about more than just ordination to the priesthood. Men, women, and children were blessed by access to all priesthood ordinances, including the blessings of the temple." I wouldn’t say it clearly implies that, or only that. Otherwise phrased, it could be: “Except that clearly implies that prior to that the time hadn't come, the early prophets acted on the light they possessed within the sphere God had placed them sufficient to make the prophecies, they were not accountable in upholding the ban, and the ban was non-essential to God's eternal plan as evidenced by its retraction in 1978.
  7. CV75

    How many black members do we have?

    Over 15 million, according to the way I qualify "black."
  8. I'm not judging the ban by its makers (nor am I judging its makers). I'm not saying it was "right" (or "wrong"). By the enlightenment (meaning revelation) we have today, and the reasoning (meaning our culture today) we certainly would not implement or support it, nor do I. I would be happy to discuss any questions you may have about my suggestions if they are not clear.
  9. But there is no basis to say the ban itself was either right or wrong. I think it is fair to say, “we do not know” because we have no better knowledge on that specific point than the past prophets had a grasp of a future cultural context, through no fault of their own. That was their dispensation with things they had accountability for and in which the Lord guided them, and things they could not be accountable for and which the Lord left them to their own devices*; this dispensation is ours. * This is how the brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord. We hold that up today as a great positive, but do you wonder what might have happened had he shared it in his day, and why the Lord told him not to (Ether 3:21)?
  10. CV75

    Fashion Question

    I would say the honeybooboo shoulder does not cover the shoulder. I like that the standard uses terms such as "should" and "avoid".
  11. It’s an interesting history in that it “focuses on our sacred past.” It is rare that a narrative can at once be both historical to the highest standard and convey sacred concepts. Since sacred matters are not complicated, the accurate narrative clothing them needn’t be (that said, “Those who want to read the actual records, better understand related topics, and discover even more stories will find links in the back of the books and online...”). In those respects, Saints represents tremendous and unprecedented progress.
  12. "New four-volume comprehensive history of the Church to emerge next year" -- another prophecy fulfilled!
  13. I think you are misreading a few things from the essay, as none of them acknowledge the ban as a form of racism, only that it was explained in racist terms which are now disavowed, along with the condemnation of racism in any form. The ban could have been implemented and eventually lifted even if more acceptable explanations had been given.
  14. There have been sample chapters in the past couple of Ensign magazines, and I'm surprised they have not been discussed on MDDB!
  15. Cool. I evidently edited my post while you were posting, so you might want to check out the additional paragraph I added.