BRMC

They are discussed frequently in my ward. We just had a youth discussion last week about it, too.

Did it yesterday.

Sure, because they are typically well cited and BYU speeches are direct sources. The first website I went to that was previously linked was some dudes blob that cited some other dudes blog that had dead links for every citation OR linked to a 300 page book with no linked citations. The offer given was pretty straightforward, I thought. Apparently it was harder than he thought.

Here we go again. 🙄 Have a great night.

Why is it so difficult for you to just do what you said you could?

You said you can provide references for each of your statements. I said great, please do. I clarified that I’d like church sources, since weird websites and tiktok aren’t academically acceptable citations. I’ll review the citations for each of your statements this week. Thanks.

Great. Please provide references from the Church for each. I’ll review them this week.

Of course you did.

Some yes, some no, some I honestly haven't given enough thought to provide an answer. You believe them. Great. That doesn't make you proven to be correct, or that the correctness applies to what we were originally discussing. This is the problem with your method of assertion. We aren't having a discussion about these topics. You're making statements that you haven't proven, arguing through open-ended declarations, then putting the onus on me. I reject that demand.

There are several published statements, not just the one you posted. A letter from the First Presidency in 1968 (I believe?) was even more definitive. Additionally, there is no evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith denied the priesthood to black men that I know of. If you'd said that, we'd be in perfect agreement. However, your assertion requires all to accept that we know the origination, the Church leaders knew the origination, then covered it up until forced to change policy. That isn't proven, nor do many accept it. This is where we get into HUGE issues, in my opinion, when discussing Church history. We can discuss the facts as we know them and agree. We can even make assumptions based on those facts and agree or disagree. However, when one side starts assigning nefarious intent as a definitive and using that in an attempt to then assert nefarious intent BY OTHERS on completely different topics, the discussion stops being factual and becomes antagonistic. You might even be right on your premise, even though there is no evidence that I know to prove it, but your assertion doesn't support your claims in other areas.

You're using something that is accepted as true to prove a statement that isn't.

🙄

OR a return to the original writings, hence a "restored gospel". Like I said, I don't get my spiritual study from TikTok. I get it from those the Lord appointed in these Latter-days. When President Nelson sends me a snapchat I'll be all in. Until then, YMMV. Good luck with your pursuit.

That's fair.

There's also a lot of speculation about what that even means. Deseret.com Personally, I don't get my gospel study from random people on TikTok.