Are Patriarchal Blessings Valid

[Son]

You've completely misunderstood my statement.

Nothing I wrote would suggest that anyone could perform a valid baptism (or any other ordinance) unless that individual had received the authority to do so from one who possessed that authority. In the example I cited, the father had previously received the keys necessary to do what he did. He simply had not been using those keys. Still, his priesthood line of authority extended back to those who rightfully held the keys, therefore his ordination of his son is deemed valid. No one can just assume this authority. As it is written:

It's as simple as that.

Where the error lies, is that people have changed the meaning of being called by God.

It now is when ever someone in the line of authority passes it on to another.

That is not called of God as was Aaron.

Aaron spoke with God as one man to another, He was honorable, righteous and fully deserving of his authority.

Inheritance through man doesn't cut it with truth. The LDS organization has IMO- blown this scripture past the point of recognition and watered down what it is to be called of God.

[Zoidberg]

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu..._&hideNav=1

Thanks, Maidservant. It appears that he is saying that once you've done something sinful, the priesthood is withdrawn 100% until you repent. I would also like to tell you that "a criminal" is a man-made construct. There are some immoral laws. Joseph Smith was considered a criminal, which you very well know, and so was Jesus. So not every crime is sinful and not every sin is a crime. In the current LDS sin hierarchy, it is worse to cheat on your wife than to steal. Yet a thief will be prosecuted, but an adulterer will not.

Now let's talk about authority. Suppose I could convince someone with "authority" to ordain me into Aaronic Priesthood the way they would ordain a man. After that, I never lie, cheat, steal and otherwise remain worthy and law-abiding. Will I be able to hold the priesthood then?

[Son]

Thanks, Maidservant. It appears that he is saying that once you've done something sinful, the priesthood is withdrawn 100% until you repent. I would also like to tell you that "a criminal" is a man-made construct. There are some immoral laws. Joseph Smith was considered a criminal, which you very well know, and so was Jesus. So not every crime is sinful and not every sin is a crime. In the current LDS sin hierarchy, it is worse to cheat on your wife than to steal. Yet a thief will be prosecuted, but an adulterer will not.

Well said.

Now let's talk about authority. Suppose I could convince someone with "authority" to ordain me into Aaronic Priesthood the way they would ordain a man. After that, I never lie, cheat, steal and otherwise remain worthy and law-abiding. Will I be able to hold the priesthood then?

Only God can call one into the priesthood, God knows when you will be worthy. Keep on the straight and narrow, Praise, love and give thanks with all your being, and Christ will appear to you and grant you the authority to act in His name.

son

[Anijen]

God still used Samson, he still used David. Christ answered the High Priest when he invoked his priesthood when he was answering no one else. I agree with Shryver thatthe mantle is more than the man IMHO.

[freakin a man]

Hold on here. If this is valid, then there is no reason for the church to go back and do everyone's baptisms. If they were baptized by someone whom they thought was valid to baptize them (say a Catholic priest) then even if that person was not valid, we would have no reason to go do their work for them. The reason we do their work for them again is because the person whom did their baptism was not valid (just as in this case), and so the baptism is null and void.

I think there are some quite substantial differences here. In this case, we are talking about an unworthy person giving blessings but the Priesthood itself was valid at the outset as it was given to him by an organization (the Church) that did have legit priesthood. The unworthy person may be bringing damnation upon their own soul but God does not punish the beneficiary of the person receiving the blessing. I am sure many young men have blessed or passed the sacrament in a state of unworthiness but they are accountable to themselves. The ordinance still is valid.

In the case of the something like the Catholic Church, LDS believe that they never had the priesthood at the outset. Both ndividual or the organization as a whole did not have it. Simply living a good, "righteous" life does not automatically cause a person to get the priesthood. They have to be given it by those who already have it. So there is no issue of an unworthy person using a the valid priesthood to perform a function as the issue is a person (worthy or not) does not have the valid priesthood at any point in the discussion.

[Maidservant]

I would also like to tell you that "a criminal" is a man-made construct. There are some immoral laws. Joseph Smith was considered a criminal, which you very well know, and so was Jesus. So not every crime is sinful and not every sin is a crime. In the current LDS sin hierarchy, it is worse to cheat on your wife than to steal. Yet a thief will be prosecuted, but an adulterer will not.

While your observations are reasonable (true), I would however put a finer point on this. While a 'criminal' is a legal term well enough (and therefore man-made), I am not using the word in that sense. The man who rapes young girls gets a word -- and I choose 'criminal'. In any case, I simply meant to highlight that being 'unworthy' is one thing. Raping someone is another. We are all imperfect and unworthy. Most of us don't rape people.

Suppose I could convince someone with "authority" to ordain me into Aaronic Priesthood the way they would ordain a man. After that, I never lie, cheat, steal and otherwise remain worthy and law-abiding. Will I be able to hold the priesthood then?

We might not have the same reference to authority, so I may need to clarify myself. Authority means from Jesus Christ. My husband has a line of authority which shows the line backwards of the men who ordained him to the Melchizedek priesthood back to the point at which Jesus Christ laid his hands on Peter. That is my husband's authority. As well, my husband does NOT have the authorization to ordain his sons or anyone to the priesthood without a coordination with the bishop (aaronic) or stake president (melchizedek). Of course, that authorization is freely given, but he must do it within the order of the church (for example, the candidate priesthood holder is going to be interviewed by his stake president, not his father). So, I wasn't sure if this is how you were thinking about authority. The authority is Jesus Christ. It has to go back to him in some direct line. In this case, the answer to your question, if I understand the question, is that no priesthood holder is presently authorized to ordain you. If you 'convinced' them, and they did it, there still is no authorization, because the ordination would be outside the order that is in place currently.

I think there are some quite substantial differences here. In this case, we are talking about an unworthy person giving blessings but the Priesthood itself was valid at the outset as it was given to him by an organization (the Church) that did have legit priesthood. The unworthy person may be bringing damnation upon their own soul but God does not punish the beneficiary of the person receiving the blessing. I am sure many young men have blessed or passed the sacrament in a state of unworthiness but they are accountable to themselves. The ordinance still is valid.

You know, we keep saying this on the board. And I agree because, right, it is not 'fair' (or whatever) to punish the receiver for the (unknown) sins of the giver of the blessing. On the other hand, this is balanced by what Pres. Hinckley said in the link I gave -- cleanliness and holiness are necessary for priesthood power and it should be what priesthood and priesthood holders (and all members) are all about. And if someone is not doing right in a very terrible way, an official stop to their priesthood needs to take place, despite all this talk about the mantle and the priesthood and not the person (which, again, I do agree with, but we need both ideas for the better perspective).

[J Green]

As per my stake president many years ago, the church's position is that the blessing may or may not be valid, or that merely portions of it may need to be clarified or changed. As Will points out, the mantle IS grater than the person, and many times the blessing will still be valid. But a person can descend beyond the point where he can be used as an instrument regardless. In these cases the Stake President is charged with reviewing individual blessings and making his own determination based on the Spirit. If the SP feels that the blessing was not fully accurate or inspired he will either direct that a new blessing be given or merely an addendum, which is a just an addition or clarification of the original. The one experience I had with this demonstrated to me that the SP acted in an inspired manner and the will of HF was done.

[cjcampbell]

So MJNSW brought up this Stake Patriarch in another thread who molested and raped his own nieces and who (shockingly) is still a Stake Patriarch. I'm assuming he was still giving patriarchal blessings at the time he was sexually abusing them. Looks like there was no disciplinary council there, even. Hopefully, MJSNW can shed some light on this situation. Were the people who received patriarchal blessings from him at the time of abuse ever allowed to reapply for a blessing recommend and go get a new one from someone else?

MJNSW made these allegations. We have no idea whether they are true. If they were proven true the Patriarch would be excommunicated. The blessings he gave up until that point would be considered valid. I think it is important not to get involved in a witch hunt or assume someone is guilty until proven innocent. There are a lot of quack therapists and disturbed individuals who make all kinds of horrible accusations all the time. The victims of these accusations have rights to due process and a legally conducted investigation.

Those who spread these rumors on the basis of mere allegations such as those made by MJNSW are setting themselves up for a defamation suit.

When a priesthood holder molests children, he loses his priesthood, right? I can see how ordinances like baptism would probably still be valid even if performed by an unworthy priesthood holder. God could overlook that as long as the person being baptized was innocent, IMHO. Besides, it's a strictly reglamented procedure. But the patriarch has to actually say individual things and discern the person's tribe. So if he doesn't have his priesthood anymore, does he just make stuff up? Or do you think God gives him inspiration for the sake of the person receiving the blessing? I guess it's reasonable to separate priesthood holders from priesthood ordinances, but a patriarchal blessing is NOT an ordinance and it's not mandatory for exaltation. So what do you think happens in this case? And can you receive another blessing from someone else if your Patriarch's transgressions at the time he blessed you become known?

The Patriarch does not lose his priesthood until he is excommunicated. No one but the Patriarch's priesthood leaders have the right to determine the Patriarch's worthiness. I would seriously question the worthiness of any member to hold a temple recommend if they refused to sustain this man simply because someone was going around spreading nasty rumors about him.

[MJNSW]

I had no idea that a bishop or sp would step in that way. Thanks for your insight. Shocked but interesting.

However, I do believe that the spirit will help those needing help period! I know from experience that that would be true.

If you would ever like to read my story I can email it to anyone who requests. I do have it published... but why pay for it if you can have it emailed to you instead

I did need blessings and I did need my Savior. But if you know anything about an abused person - they do doubt themselves, God, Anyone and everyone around them. So maybe it would not make sense to anyone who had not been abused - but having those hands on my head and thinking the words were coming through him to me from God meant the world!

I can also say that I would say a prayer to God silently asking God for specific answers to questions that I would only know to test if the prayer was sent to me from God or if it was just the words and thoughts of the one giving me the blessing.

I still practice that today.

[MJNSW]

MJNSW made these allegations. We have no idea whether they are true. If they were proven true the Patriarch would be excommunicated. The blessings he gave up until that point would be considered valid. I think it is important not to get involved in a witch hunt or assume someone is guilty until proven innocent. There are a lot of quack therapists and disturbed individuals who make all kinds of horrible accusations all the time. The victims of these accusations have rights to due process and a legally conducted investigation.

Those who spread these rumors on the basis of mere allegations such as those made by MJNSW are setting themselves up for a defamation suit.

Did you notice I did not name names? The reason was because I was keeping that situation silent and not pointing out the individual. Now if I named his name then you may have a point. So imagine that I never said anything... and this is all a hypothetical situation. Would the answers still be the same?

I do have 2 other examples that are public knowledge and I can produce the proof for you. These are examples of a past bishops clerk who raped and molested his daughter for years. He is now dead. He performed blessings for his family members and even helped a boy through the veil because he father could not be there because his father drank coffee. Little did the boy know until later about this man. Does that make the temple experience void and null for the boy? NO! Oh and by the way... the BC was my father.

And the other example is of a Young mens pres. or man... the title escapes me. But he was a leader over the young men. He abused the boys and is now serving a 12-15 year prison sentence. The man was being considered for a possible bishop when the news broke out about the allegations and his imprisonment. He is now in prison. Most that knew him said they could never imagine that of him. That he was upstanding and definitely GA material.

The Patriarch does not lose his priesthood until he is excommunicated. No one but the Patriarch's priesthood leaders have the right to determine the Patriarch's worthiness. I would seriously question the worthiness of any member to hold a temple recommend if they refused to sustain this man simply because someone was going around spreading nasty rumors about him.

You are right... they will not loose their priesthood nor their membership until they are found guilty in a court of law.

Even so... there are many other instances that happen that many choose not to believe - but are very real. That is why the questions at hand are interesting. I am grateful that they are asked because it is good to hear the views of all on the matter.

Oh, and just so you know - I don't make light of allegations. These are not matters to be laughed of or made lightly because they do effect the lives of all involved.

[Son]

Regardless of what someone or some authority says, if you live unrighteously you are not in the Holy Priesthood. Read your own scriptures.

If you are not on the straight and narrow you do not have the GOD GIVEN priesthood, plain and simple.

I can say I am a duck, but it doesn't make it so. An authority of Ducks can say I am a duck and it still is false.

So far there is a huge apostasy of truth going on in the hierarchy of the reformed church.

Can you say time for another reformation.

Maybe next time it won't turn into the repetitive watered down pablam that says you are A High Priest no matter how you live.

READ YOUR SCRIPTURES!

son

[cjcampbell]

Did you notice I did not name names? The reason was because I was keeping that situation silent and not pointing out the individual. Now if I named his name then you may have a point. So imagine that I never said anything... and this is all a hypothetical situation. Would the answers still be the same?

I do have 2 other examples that are public knowledge and I can produce the proof for you. These are examples of a past bishops clerk who raped and molested his daughter for years. He is now dead. He performed blessings for his family members and even helped a boy through the veil because he father could not be there because his father drank coffee. Little did the boy know until later about this man. Does that make the temple experience void and null for the boy? NO! Oh and by the way... the BC was my father.

And the other example is of a Young mens pres. or man... the title escapes me. But he was a leader over the young men. He abused the boys and is now serving a 12-15 year prison sentence. The man was being considered for a possible bishop when the news broke out about the allegations and his imprisonment. He is now in prison. Most that knew him said they could never imagine that of him. That he was upstanding and definitely GA material.

You are right... they will not loose their priesthood nor their membership until they are found guilty in a court of law.

Even so... there are many other instances that happen that many choose not to believe - but are very real. That is why the questions at hand are interesting. I am grateful that they are asked because it is good to hear the views of all on the matter.

Oh, and just so you know - I don't make light of allegations. These are not matters to be laughed of or made lightly because they do effect the lives of all involved.

No one is laughing. Quite the contrary. No one approves of abuse. However, abuse takes many forms, including making false allegations of abuse or convincing people that they have been abused when in fact they have not. Both of the latter types of abuse have become very common in recent decades.

[MJNSW]

No one is laughing. Quite the contrary. No one approves of abuse. However, abuse takes many forms, including making false allegations of abuse or convincing people that they have been abused when in fact they have not. Both of the latter types of abuse have become very common in recent decades.

Edited to add that the article below was emailed to me as well so if you want it forwarded on to you to read the entire thing instead of paying for another copy I would be willing to forward it on to you. Just pm me.

Article 7 of 13

Bringing Abuse to Light

Date: October 17, 1999

No one is as trusting as a child, and that makes children all too vulnerable to sexual predators at home, at school -- even in houses of worship. By one national estimate, one in 25 churches has experienced a sexual abuse allegation. And no faith -- from the Roman Catholic Church to the Hare Krishnas -- is immune.

That holds true in Utah, where The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints counts 70 percent of the state's 2 million residents as at least nominal members. Experts say the incidence of child sexual abuse in the church's ranks is the same as in the larger society's.

For the rest of the article you need to request the full copy from archives.

Author: The Salt Lake Tribune

Page: A1

Word Count: 571

Publication: Salt Lake Tribune, The (UT)

Article ID: 100F32E831FBF66E

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archiv...l_useweights=no

This next story is about a boy scout leader that abused a boy... And since the church is a HUGE supporter of Boy Scouts and that particular Young mens leader now in prison was also a Boy Scout leader in their ward and hurt the boys from his ward on camping trips I would add this article for you to read as well. It goes hand and hand with the Salt Lake Tribune Article. I had to purchase the archived article to read the full article with SLT. But it is worth the read.

Edited to add the article: Sorry: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/24/...ce=search_story

Yes there are those who make false allegations. I am not one of them. Here are the links as proof.

http://cjwilkes.com/writings2.html

My life story published. Not meant for purchase. If anyone wants to read it just email me and I can send it to you via email.

http://www.amazon.com/Daddy-Forgive-You-C-...9288&sr=8-3

As for the Young mens leader who abused them, he is in prison and when he is released in 2014 in Arizona... his profile will be distributed to everyone in any neighborhood he moves into.

Now - I have worked with the abused and the abuser - in Utah as well as all over the country. I have seen first hand that Leaders of every aspect are not exempt from this ugly sin! So my thoughts and concerns apply to any situation similar if not the ones that are mentioned here.

Life unfortunately is cruel ...Making sense of it is quite hard. Trusting is harder. And sometimes the responses should be upfront and honest without skirting the issues so that people can find the truth of it for themselves.

So who do you trust and how do you trust? How do you know that the person is called of God or just a buddy called to the position? With the church as large as it is there really is no way to know. How do you know that they are acting in God's best interest or their own? And how do you allow your child to be left alone with any of their leaders at church in a world like this for an interview when they are predominately all male? I am sorry... but no one will be left with my children for baptismal interviews or anything without me there. If that is the case then my children can decide where they are adults (18) if they want to make that choice for themselves.

[cjcampbell]

So who do you trust and how do you trust? How do you know that the person is called of God or just a buddy called to the position? With the church as large as it is there really is no way to know. How do you know that they are acting in God's best interest or their own? And how do you allow your child to be left alone with any of their leaders at church in a world like this for an interview when they are predominately all male? I am sorry... but no one will be left with my children for baptismal interviews or anything without me there. If that is the case then my children can decide where they are adults (18) if they want to make that choice for themselves.

Given that trust has been abused (and I maintain that this is the worst aspect of any abuse) how indeed can you know whom to trust? There are a few possibilities, each with their advantages and disadvantages:

1) Trust no one. You do as you did. I think you are wrong to assume that abuse is a male thing -- in fact I am certain that women are every bit as prone to abuse as men are. You have little reason to trust men; I have little reason to trust women. Yet we survive. The problem with trusting no one, however, is that it makes it difficult to accomplish anything and teaches the principle that the gospel really does not mean anything. It makes an idol of victimhood. I do not think it is possible to prevent all abuse. Thinking that you can leads to the conclusion that if abuse occurs it is somehow your fault because you were not vigilant enough or something. What a horrible thought! It places responsibility for the abuse on the victim or on the victim's guardians, when it should be placed on the abuser.

If you treat everyone as a potential abuser, that is also abusive. It makes you an abuser. Telling everyone that they cannot be trusted or that they are evil is abusive.

2) Learn who you can trust. My own approach to life. Yes, I can be wrong and sometimes I pay the price. However, I also have learned that there really are some people that I CAN trust and these have greatly enriched my life. We all fall down and scrape our knees, so to speak, from time to time. Some learn to pick themselves up and go forward; others allow bad experiences to hinder their progress.

I think it is more beneficial to learn to put abuse in its proper place. If you are abused, deal with it. Learn from the experience and resolve not to be like that yourself. Learn that it is not your fault. Avoid those who abuse you and get on with your life. But don't treat everyone as if they are criminals.

People who are abusive should be separated from society. They do not deserve to live among us and they will not be allowed to live among us in the kingdom of God unless they repent and become completely trustworthy -- but then they are no longer the same person, are they? I have no idea what it takes to convince an abuser to repent, though -- I only know that it is supposed to be possible and that repentance is probably never completed in this life.

3) Trust everyone and live with the consequences. Some members advocate that. I find such a position naive. I think someone who thinks that everyone can be trusted is probably in denial about their own past.

[Zoidberg]

MJNSW, I cannot even begin to express my admiration of your ability to get your life together. I was physically and emotionally abused in my childhood home, and that was enough to make me depressed and suicidal. I'm still dealing with the consequences and have huge trust issues and a truckload of problems. What you went through was much worse, and yet you are able to have a meaningful life. You're an inspiration.

CJ, I don't think only males or mostly males can be abusive. I was abused by my mother. That said, a patriarchal culture cultivates male abusers. There is no denying that. The Church constantly discourages abuse, but also constantly encourages women to submit to their husbands'/fathers' leadership, so they are just putting band-aids on the situation they themselves perpetuate. Research (and the sex offender registry) also shows the prevalence of males among sex offenders. The culture is not the least contributor.

I believe in repentance and forgiveness for everyone. But what will your forgiveness do to an unrepentant sinner? They don't feel like they need your forgiveness.

[Hammer]

Alright, let me ask you this: if someone wholeheartedly believed that I, Zoidberg, could give patriarchal blessings (I'm a girl, BTW) and came to me and asked me to give them such a blessing and I did, that blessing would be valid? God would give me the temporary ability to discern what tribe to assign that person to and what to say about their life and purpose as a child of God?

It would help immensely if you have every held the priesthood/ having been ordained. So your hypothetical example is too flawed to even respond to, as such.

Try again.

MJNSW, I cannot even begin to express my admiration of your ability to get your life together. I was physically and emotionally abused in my childhood home, and that was enough to make me depressed and suicidal. I'm still dealing with the consequences and have huge trust issues and a truckload of problems. What you went through was much worse, and yet you are able to have a meaningful life. You're an inspiration.

CJ, I don't think only males or mostly males can be abusive. I was abused by my mother. That said, a patriarchal culture cultivates male abusers. There is no denying that. The Church constantly discourages abuse, but also constantly encourages women to submit to their husbands'/fathers' leadership, so they are just putting band-aids on the situation they themselves perpetuate. Research (and the sex offender registry) also shows the prevalence of males among sex offenders. The culture is not the least contributor.

I believe in repentance and forgiveness for everyone. But what will your forgiveness do to an unrepentant sinner? They don't feel like they need your forgiveness.

Many are abused in homes all over the world. They don't go militant upon their religion.

[Zoidberg]

It would help immensely if you have every held the priesthood/ having been ordained. So your hypothetical example is too flawed to even respond to, as such.

Okay, then. Where is it expressly prohibited that women be ordained priesthood holders, I ask thee? Not that I feel any intense need to give people patriarchal blessings.

Many are abused in homes all over the world. They don't go militant upon their religion.

And the purpose of that comment was...? Who's going militant on what religion?

[buraianto]

The Patriarch does not lose his priesthood until he is excommunicated. No one but the Patriarch's priesthood leaders have the right to determine the Patriarch's worthiness. I would seriously question the worthiness of any member to hold a temple recommend if they refused to sustain this man simply because someone was going around spreading nasty rumors about him.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:36,37

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

So his authority is gone when the Spirit of the Lord is withdrawn. I guess the question is, when does this happen?

[Zoidberg]

Doctrine and Covenants 121:36,37

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

So his authority is gone when the Spirit of the Lord is withdrawn. I guess the question is, when does this happen?

I would say as soon as the intention to perform an immoral action is formed (although he might get it back if he repents and never actually does it). Consider this: the Patriarch is walking towards his daughter's bedroom, intending to touch her inappropriately for the first time. Suddenly a jet engine lands on the house (Donnie Darko style), killing him immediately. Had it not happened, he would have molested his daughter. I would say he died guilty of that sin even though he never got to actually do it. And without his priesthood, too.

[cinepro]

I think it would be good to point out that the gift of discernment is a GIFT given to some... not all. So you may have a million leaders and of that million, only a handful may have that gift. So in other words, they have to rely on other means to help them discern.

This is true for everyone, including those who aren't Bishops or hold the priesthood. It's called statistics.

[Hammer]

Okay, then. Where is it expressly prohibited that women be ordained priesthood holders, I ask thee? Not that I feel any intense need to give people patriarchal blessings.

And the purpose of that comment was...? Who's going militant on what religion?

Where is it expressly ordained or taught that women be ordained priesthood holders? Consider what you have and don't covet what you don't have. That goes for men and women alike.

The last comment was for all.

[Zoidberg]

Where is it expressly ordained or taught that women be ordained priesthood holders?

Well, remember how it wasn't expressly said anywhere that black people were/weren't able to hold the priesthood? And how some black people were ordained by JS? But then for some reason BY confused them with the seed of Cain? And then there was that embarrassing priesthood ban? And then it wasn't there anymore?

[Theologian]

Remember the story of Jacob tricking Isaac into giving him a (birthright) blessing by pretending to be Easu? When Isaac learned of the deceit he didnâ??t attempt to nullify the blessing. Rather he let it stand saying it was of God.

Hereâ??s how I see it: All priesthood holders are less than perfect and so to some degree unworthy to perform a blessing. The test is does the blessing conform to Godâ??s will. (For example, God will not honor a patriarchal blessing telling somebody he will become president of the United States if that isnâ??t his will.) If the blessing is in accordance with Godâ??s will then it will be ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise if the recipient is worthy. However righteous the patriarch may be, if the blessing is not in accordance with Godâ??s will the Holy Spirit of Promise will not ratify it.

[Zoidberg]

Remember the story of Jacob tricking Isaac into giving him a (birthright) blessing by pretending to be Easu? When Isaac learned of the deceit he didnâ??t attempt to nullify the blessing. Rather he let it stand saying it was of God.

hmm, so if I pretended to be a guy to get ordained a priesthood holder, there is a good chance that this ordination would be valid (if God so desires, and why would He not, I ask you? I'm way awesome! )

Hereâ??s how I see it: All priesthood holders are less than perfect and so to some degree unworthy to perform a blessing. The test is does the blessing conform to Godâ??s will. (For example, God will not honor a patriarchal blessing telling somebody he will become president of the United States if that isnâ??t his will.) If the blessing is in accordance with Godâ??s will then it will be ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise if the recipient is worthy. However righteous the patriarch may be, if the blessing is not in accordance with Godâ??s will the Holy Spirit of Promise will not ratify it.

What are you saying? Even the righteous patriarchs aren't inspired to say the exact thing they're saying? If the blessing conforms to God's will then it will be ratified? So when your patriarchal blessing is accurate, it's a mere coincidence? I've heard before that the blessings were "conditional" on your righteousness, but that's a totally new angle. Then what's the point of getting a patriarchal blessing at all?

[Hammer]

Well, remember how it wasn't expressly said anywhere that black people were/weren't able to hold the priesthood?

It was scriptural however. Do you need a reference?

And how some black people were ordained by JS? But then for some reason BY confused them with the seed of Cain? And then there was that embarrassing priesthood ban? And then it wasn't there anymore?

Some were but as you say, that was all. All worthy male members can now hold the priesthood.

CFR about BY being confused.

CFR about embarrassing priesthood ban. It has never been embarrassing. God is the same today, yesterday, and always. Was Moses embarrassed about those who couldn't enter the holy of holies? I think you confuse God's kingdom on earth with the worlds philosophies.