Downside to reflection and foregiveness?

[paulpatter]

What has that got to do with the discussion.

Good question.

Didn't you compare the age at which one can legally drive--established by law--with the engendering of Official Declaration -2? If, as you say, "It doesn't matter if it were a commandment or a policy or a law," what was your point in using (erroneously) the driving age analogy?

[Deborah]

what was your point in using (erroneously) the driving age analogy?

You obviously have problems with comparisons. The point was there is an age at which driving is permissable and an age when it is not. The fact that someone at a certain age is eligible to drive doesn't have anything to do with reversing the law. The Priesthood is the same. There is a time when certain groups of people (going well back into the OT) were not given permission to hold the Priesthood. And then there was a time when they were eligible. It wasn't a reversal of the law of the Priesthood but an expansion of the rights to obtain it, just as OD2 wasn't a reversal on the law of the Priesthood but an expansion of who had the rights to obtain it. Priesthood has always been according to the Law of God and who was able to hold it was up to God.

[DanGB]

I think that you seem to believe that the only reason the Church would withold the priesthood from a group of people is because the Church sees the group as unworthy to hold it, as per your comment about your black friends being unworthy until OD#2.

Well forgive my grasp of the obvious, and no disrespect intended here, but let me lay out the basics:

OD2 states all worthy males can now hold the priesthood. Prior to OD2, blacks could not hold the priesthood. Why could blacks not have the the priesthod prior to OD2? Were they worthy? If they were worthy, what part of our doctrine specifically told us they could not? I am looking for the reason you and others seem to think I have missed.

I, on the other hand, understand that there can be reasons for God to withold the priesthood from a group that have nothing to do with their worthiness.

Can you tell me then, why and for whAt reasons the Church denied the priesthood to blacks? I have asked and never received an answer yet so I am interested!

[jwhitlock]

Unable to respond credibly to my claim that the First Presidency's letter constituted an admission that the prohibition was wrong (which is what DanGB seeks in his opening post), you resort to the "shifting ground" argumentive fallacy with a touch of strawman. I never said that the "only reason [the prohibition] was ended was because it was in error." That is an assertion of your manufacture. Hence, the "faulty reasoning"--forgive me--is your own.

No need for me to respond to the above paragraph. There is a need, however, for you to learn to read contextually.

Still no CFR? I didn't think so. Hence, no need in a serious discussion with someone, like you, who is simply throwing out unfounded statements as fact.

Here's your third CFR. You've made the claim that the Declaration constitutes an admission that the prohibition was wrong. You've provided no basis for that, no quotes from the First Presidency or the Twelve concerning it being a "corrective" action, and yet you want us to take you seriously.

This is simply an unfounded fantasy on your part. Perhaps when you have something of some substance to add to the discussion - which I don't think will be forthcoming - someone else may decide to waste their time with you.

So unless you can provide the CFR as requested, consider your comments dismissed as irrelevant.

[jwhitlock]

You are reading into the text an admission of wrongdoing which is nowhere found in the text itself.

Hence the repeated requests for a CFR, which he is refusing to answer.

When someone makes the claim that it is an admission of wrongdoing, you'd think they'd have something besides their own bias against the Church to work with. Evidently, that's not the case in this situation.

[Jason]

Well forgive my grasp of the obvious, and no disrespect intended here, but let me lay out the basics:

OD2 states all worthy males can now hold the priesthood. Prior to OD2, blacks could not hold the priesthood. Why could blacks not have the the priesthod prior to OD2? Were they worthy? If they were worthy, what part of our doctrine specifically told us they could not? I am looking for the reason you and others seem to think I have missed.

Following your logic, you must therefore think that the Church believes women are unworthy of holding the priesthood. Correct?

Or can you think of some other reason why women might be denied the priesthood?

Can you tell me then, why and for whAt reasons the Church denied the priesthood to blacks? I have asked and never received an answer yet so I am interested!

The answer is: We don't know for sure, and most of our speculation is probably wrong, but we have seen examples of God witholding the priesthood in the past (at one time everyone but the Levites was "unworthy") and currently (women), so we know that there can be justifiable reasons for God doing so.

[jwhitlock]

Once again it had nothing to do with worthiness. Many of those who were not allowed to have the Priesthood were more worthy than those who did. Only God knows the actual reasons for the restriction. As has been said over and over, many at different times have not been permitted to hold the Priesthood and even today when all are able to receive it there are still restrictions on it.

And you are mistaken if you think Joseph Smith was not aware of this and it wasn't begun under him, even after he had already ordained a few free blacks to the Priesthood. Some accounts do indicate that he did begin it while living in Missouri. We don't have anything specifically written down and so people have continued to speculate. But the point is all the prophets since him have asked the Lord about this issue and all of them received the same revelation that it was not the time yet. So for you to presume that you know more than they is the height of hubris.

Forget it, Deborah. He's been corrected several times about this "worthiness" fetish he has, and he just won't let it go. His mind is made up and he's just finding the rationalizations - like the Declaration wasn't really a revelation - to justify himself.

[jwhitlock]

Following your logic, you must therefore think that the Church believes women are unworthy of holding the priesthood. Correct?

Or can you think of some other reason why women might be denied the priesthood?

Excellent point. Let's see if he has any internal consistency on this at all - no matter how misguided it is.

[jwhitlock]

Can you tell me then, why and for whAt reasons the Church denied the priesthood to blacks? I have asked and never received an answer yet so I am interested!

Let's put it simply for you.

You have received answers.

You've refused to accept them, because your mind is already made up.

PaulPatter and you, who seem to be made of the same cloth, have engaged in a series of unverifiable claims presented as fact. There's no particular interest in either of you in understanding the priesthood ban; instead, you simply want to give primacy to the most negative explanation you can find about the motivations of the Church and its leaders.

Well, that's what the anti-Mormon side is made up of, isn't it.

[paulpatter]

Still no CFR? I didn't think so. Hence, no need in a serious discussion with someone, like you, who is simply throwing out unfounded statements as fact.

"Unfounded statements"? Read on.

: Here's your third CFR. You've made the claim that the Declaration constitutes an admission that the prohibition was wrong. You've provided no basis for that, no quotes from the First Presidency or the Twelve concerning it being a "corrective" action, and yet you want us to take you seriously.

You and "us" err. The reference you call for is Official Declaration--2, canonized scripture of the Church initiated in a letter dated June 8, 1978, and signed by the First Presidency. As I have explained before (sigh--see Post #59), the Declaration's creation, publication, and canonization constitute--proprio vigore--an admission that the prohibition was wrong and had to be changed.

: This is simply an unfounded fantasy on your part.

I wasn't aware of that. You are so perceptive.

: Perhaps when you have something of some substance to add to the discussion - which I don't think will be forthcoming - someone else may decide to waste their time with you.

They will, indeed, be wasting their time if they are 1) unable to read contextually; and 2) unable to understand that when an individual or organization changes a well-known position, such change is an admission that the previous position required corrective action. Does that sound like anyone you know?

: So unless you can provide the CFR as requested, consider your comments dismissed as irrelevant.

Ah, gee, you really know how to hurt a guy.

[Jason]

You and "us" err. The reference you call for is Official Declaration--2, canonized scripture of the Church initiated in a letter dated June 8, 1978, and signed by the First Presidency. As I have explained before (sigh--see Post #59), the Declaration's creation, publication, and canonization constitute--proprio vigore--an admission that the prohibition was wrong and had to be changed.

No it isn't.

They will, indeed, be wasting their time if they are 1) unable to read contextually; and 2) unable to understand that when an individual or organization changes a well-known position, such change is an admission that the previous position required corrective action. Does that sound like anyone you know?

By that logic, any communication from the Church could be an admission that corrective action was required.

Announcements for new temples? Corrective action.

Re-orginization of the seventies? Corrective action.

Proclamation on the Family? Corrective action.

The annual letter from the First Presidency regarding not using Church facilities for political purposes? Corrective action.

Don't you think it just might be possible to change policy without also saying the former policy was in error?

[paulpatter]

No it isn't.

I see. And it "isn't" because ______________________________________________________.

: By that logic, any communication from the Church could be an admission that corrective action was required.

Announcements for new temples? Corrective action.

There was something wrong with the old temples, huh?

: Re-orginization of the seventies? Corrective action.

No, a managerial initiative necessitated (probably) by Church expansion worldwide.

: Proclamation on the Family? Corrective action.

Wrong again; a formal response to threats to the existence of the traditional family and the campaign for

same-sex marriage.

: The annual letter from the First Presidency regarding not using Church facilities for political purposes? Corrective action.

Uh-huh. So, bishops have been using "Church facilities for political purposes." Well, of course, an annual letter certainly makes sense.

: Don't you think it just might be possible to change policy without also saying the former policy was in error?

Isn't the answer to your stacked-deck question obvious? Try again.

[paulpatter]

Let's put it simply for you.

PaulPatter and you, who seem to be made of the same cloth, have engaged in a series of unverifiable claims presented as fact. There's no particular interest in either of you in understanding the priesthood ban. . . .

Excuse me, but my premise is not an effort to "understand" the priesthood ban, as you suppose; rather, it posits that Official Declaration--2 constitutes an acknowledgement that the prohibition--at that point in time--was wrong and needed to be reversed.

: Well, that's what the anti-Mormon side is made up of, isn't it.

Huh? My premise is a defense of the Church. What have you been reading?

[Jason]

Isn't the answer to your stacked-deck question obvious? Try again.

Very well. Is it possible that OD#2 was not an attempt to correct a flawed policy, but a change in policy because changing conditions would finally allow the new policy to be implemented?

Out of curiousity, do you view OD#1 as a correction of a flawed policy?

[paulpatter]

Very well. Is it possible that OD#2 was not an attempt to correct a flawed policy, but a change in policy because changing conditions would finally allow the new policy to be implemented?

I believe that the priesthood prohibition was flawed from the outset, and that Official Declaration--2 acknowledged the flaw and eliminated it. "Changing conditions" certainly were operative--so much so that they didn't merely "allow the new policy to be implemented" but, rather, they hastened its implementation. For a first-rate account of the trials President Kimball went through in seeking the revelation, I recommend "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood," by Edward L. Kimball in BYU Studies, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008. All 85 pages of it provide highly instructive reading and a deepening of respect for President Kimball.

Out of curiousity, do you view OD#1 as a correction of a flawed policy?

I view it as demonstrating compliance with the 12th Article of Faith.

Thanks for the questions.

[jwhitlock]

"Unfounded statements"? Read on.

Not only unfounded, but repeated.

You and "us" err. The reference you call for is Official Declaration--2, canonized scripture of the Church initiated in a letter dated June 8, 1978, and signed by the First Presidency. As I have explained before (sigh--see Post #59), the Declaration's creation, publication, and canonization constitute--proprio vigore--an admission that the prohibition was wrong and had to be changed.

This presupposes that any change made to anything must only be because that thing is wrong. And the answer is: False.

I wasn't aware of that. You are so perceptive.

You provide the material. I state the obvious.

They will, indeed, be wasting their time if they are 1) unable to read contextually; and 2) unable to understand that when an individual or organization changes a well-known position, such change is an admission that the previous position required corrective action. Does that sound like anyone you know?

It sounds like someone who has made a false connection of cause and effect. Evidently, since you keep repeating unfounded statements, you need to be reminded: Just because something is changed, doesn't mean it's correcting something that was wrong or false. Hopefully you can let that basic truth sink in.

Ah, gee, you really know how to hurt a guy.

The truth is devastating to the wicked.

[jwhitlock]

Excuse me, but my premise is not an effort to "understand" the priesthood ban, as you suppose; rather, it posits that Official Declaration--2 constitutes an acknowledgement that the prohibition--at that point in time--was wrong and needed to be reversed.

Wrong again. When you change jobs, it must constitute an admission that you were in the wrong position. There's no other possible explanation - not.

Huh? My premise is a defense of the Church. What have you been reading?

You "defend" the Church by misrepresenting its intent? What a laugh.

[jwhitlock]

Very well. Is it possible that OD#2 was not an attempt to correct a flawed policy, but a change in policy because changing conditions would finally allow the new policy to be implemented?

I decided not to go outside because it was raining. When the sun started to shine, I reversed myself and went outside.

Obviously, I must have been wrong about not going outside in the first place. The only reason to change something - according to paul - is because it was wrong in the first place. That's the only possible explanation, and the Church's lifting of the ban has no other possible explanation.

It's impossible to convince some people of basic, foundational flaws in their reasoning - such as it were.

[paulpatter]

Wrong again. When you change jobs, it must constitute an admission that you were in the wrong position. There's no other possible explanation - not.

Your analogy doesn't work. Why? Because changing jobs does not necessarily involve a moral or civil rights issue; consequently, an "admission"--as it relates to the Declaration--isn't applicable. (BTW, this is known in debate as the "analogical fallacy".)

: You "defend" the Church by misrepresenting its intent? What a laugh.

Oh my gosh, I just had a "gestalt moment" (seriously). I think you and I are on the same side of the fence and have been without knowing it. Explanation: I had assumed you were a critic faulting the Church for not acknowledging that the prohibition was wrong. In the Church's defense, I responded by stating that the Declaration itself constituted such an acknowledgment, and, consequently, the Church had "come clean." You interpreted that response to mean that I was trying to besmirch the Church by characterizing it as culpable. Does that make sense, or have I completely "lost it"?

(I'm a life-long Latter-day Saint, and--most likely--twice your age. I worked at BYU for 17 years in an executive position.)

[jwhitlock]

Your analogy doesn't work. Why? Because changing jobs does not necessarily involve a moral or civil rights issue; consequently, an "admission"--as it relates to the Declaration--isn't applicable. (BTW, this is known in debate as the "analogical fallacy".)

Oh, please. Here you make another assumption - that the lifting of the ban was a moral or civil rights issue. It wasn't.

We call that "assumption fallacy".

Oh my gosh, I just had a "gestalt moment" (seriously). I think you and I are on the same side of the fence and have been without knowing it. Explanation: I had assumed you were a critic faulting the Church for not acknowledging that the prohibition was wrong. In the Church's defense, I responded by stating that the Declaration itself constituted such an acknowledgment, and, consequently, the Church had "come clean." You interpreted that response to mean that I was trying to besmirch the Church by characterizing it as culpable. Does that make sense, or have I completely "lost it"?

(I'm a life-long Latter-day Saint, and--most likely--twice your age. I worked at BYU for 17 years in an executive position.)

Unless you were born before about 1903, you wouldn't be twice my age.

To this point, you've been basically on the same side of the debate as Dan - who was denying that the OD was any kind of revelation, but was just a convenient way of doing away with something that was "embarrassing". Any claim that it was anything but a revelation is something I take serious issue with. I find the 1978 revelation to be one of the more significant happenings in the history of the Church, and I don't think that most of us (including me) understand the full import of this revelation.

The fact of the whole matter is that the Church has not, to my knowledge, made any admission of guilt or wrongdoing concerning the priesthood ban. Frankly, I don't believe it needs to. We don't have enough information as to what the purpose of it was or how it really originated to make any kind of judgment - including claiming that the Church was admitting it was in error by lifting the ban. The simple fact is that if it had just been an error, it would have been rectified long before 1978. It wasn't, and it is evident from at least Presidents Kimball and McKay that while they pleaded with the Lord to lift it, it was not forthcoming until He was ready.

My whole point in all of this as a member of the Church is simply this: the OD was given by revelation, and it constitutes in no way an admission that the Church was wrong in its policy before that point. There is no statement from the Church about wrongdoing; in fact, there is quite the opposite as the Church states that the day that we have looked forward to has finally come. That defines the whole position of the Church in this matter, and it is one that I agree wholeheartedly with.

Personally, I find Darius Gray's speculations on the subject to be the most compelling ones.

[paulpatter]

Oh, please. Here you make another assumption - that the lifting of the ban was a moral or civil rights issue. It wasn't.

I referred to them as factors--not the driving force as you fraudulently claim--that caused President Kimball to spend long hours in prayer in the temple. You would do well to read "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood" by Edward L. Kimball in BYU Studies, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008 (all 85 pages of it). In a section entitled "Civil Rights Movement," Edward Kimball writes: "As awareness of the priesthood policy grew, many white potential investigators found the priesthood ban offensive and refused to listen to the missionaries [emphasis added]. The escalation of the civil rights movement during the 1960s sensitized Americans to racial bigotry, and they found it difficult to see the Church's prohibition on black ordination as anything else. . . . Protest against the Church policy took many forms--rejection of missionaries, public demonstrations, even sabotage [he provides details]."

: To this point, you've been basically on the same side of the debate as Dan - who was denying that the OD was any kind of revelation, but was just a convenient way of doing away with something that was "embarrassing".

You couldn't be more wrong--dead wrong. Inasmuch as you're so "big" on CFRs, show me something I have posted on this thread in support of your assertion.

: Any claim that it was anything but a revelation is something I take serious issue with. I find the 1978 revelation to be one of the more significant happenings in the history of the Church, and I don't think that most of us (including me) understand the full import of this revelation.

I don't disagree. I have a copy of the letter, handsomely framed, hanging in my office.

: The fact of the whole matter is that the Church has not, to my knowledge, made any admission of guilt or wrongdoing concerning the priesthood ban.

I have never said that they have (but see below).

: Frankly, I don't believe it needs to. We don't have enough information as to what the purpose of it was or how it really originated to make any kind of judgment. . .

". . .any kind of judgment"? You overreach. Edward Kimball writes: "President McKay sometimes said in private conversations that the restriction was not doctrine but was a policy and subject to change [emphasis added]. . . . President McKay himself apparently meant only that the rule or practice was not established by direct revelation" (p. 22 of E. Kimball's article).

including claiming that the Church was admitting it was in error by lifting the ban.

OD--2 constitutes an acknowledgment that the ban was wrong and had to be lifted. Huff and puff as you might, you can't get around that.

: The simple fact is that if it had just been an error, it would have been rectified long before 1978. It wasn't, and it is evident from at least Presidents Kimball and McKay that while they pleaded with the Lord to lift it, it was not forthcoming until He was ready.

Do read Edward Kimball's article. There is good reason to believe--gasp!--that he knows more about this matter than you do.

: My whole point in all of this as a member of the Church is simply this: the OD was given by revelation, and it constitutes in no way an admission that the Church was wrong in its policy before that point.

Your concluding clause is questionable and readily open to challenge. Some General Authorities were, at a minimum, uncomfortable with the ban. Edward Kimball writes: "Hugh B. Brown, counselor to President McKay from 1961 to 1970, appears to have been the most open to change. He urged that the priesthood restriction could be dropped as a matter of Church administrative policy without requiring a specific revelation. He reasoned that if the restriction had not come by revelation, it could be vacated without revelation" (p. 21). Clearly, President Brown thought the ban was an error. No? Why then did he seek to have it lifted?

: There is no statement from the Church about wrongdoing; in fact, there is quite the opposite as the Church states that the day that we have looked forward to has finally come.

Uh-huh, and there is also this: ". . .witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld. . . ." Seems to me that constitutes an admission--one the Church was anxious to rectify (and appropriately so).

: That defines the whole position of the Church in this matter, and it is one that I agree wholeheartedly with.

Fine.

In my previous post, I extended an olive branch and gave my reasons for doing so. You have brushed it aside without so much as an acknowledgment.

I find that--to be charitable--revealing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

OD--2 constitutes an acknowledgment that the ban was wrong and had to be lifted. Huff and puff as you might, you can't get around that.

And just saying it over and over doesn't make it so. This is the main point of contention that myself and others are calling you out on. When God changed his mind to let more than the just levites hold the priesthood was that an "acknowledgement" that was wrong?

[paulpatter]

And just saying it over and over doesn't make it so.

Nor does denying it "over and over." Did you miss the passage in my previous post about President Hugh B. Brown's effort to rescind the ban? He knew it was wrong, and so did some other GAs. It had virtually no doctrinal basis, and it was morally reprehensible.

: This is the main point of contention that myself and others are calling you out on.

Sorry, I'm something less than intimidated.

: When God changed his mind to let more than the just levites hold the priesthood was that an "acknowledgement" that was wrong?

I suppose you will have to ask God.

[Jason]

I believe that the priesthood prohibition was flawed from the outset, and that Official Declaration--2 acknowledged the flaw and eliminated it.

Apparently one of these beliefs preceeded the other. So is it possible that you believe the priesthood ban was a mistake, therefore you look for evidence that it was a mistake and find it where someone who isn't looking for such evidence to fit their belief does not (pretty much everyone else who has weighed in on the thread).

I view it [OD#1] as demonstrating compliance with the 12th Article of Faith.

Ah, so you do, in fact, accept that a change in policy does not always mean that the prior policy was flawed and needed correction. Sometimes it can be a demonstration of obediance to some other principle.

Hmmm.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nor does denying it "over and over." Did you miss the passage in my previous post about President Hugh B. Brown's effort to rescind the ban? He knew it was wrong, and so did some other GAs. It had virtually no doctrinal basis, and it was morally reprehensible.

I could care less what Hugh B Brown thought. I am not interested in what thier opinion was of the preisthood ban. What I care about what the will of the Lord is. I cannot find any offical teaching that the ban was wrong. If you have something to offfer in the way of either scripture verses or a GC talk then it is just your opinion that you think it was wrong and therefor OD2 was "an acknowldgement that they were wrong".

Sorry, I'm something less than intimidated.

Why are you trying to make this personal? Who said anything about being intimidated?

I suppose you will have to ask God.

yeah why don't I, in the mean time I don't need your opinion on the matter. when the Prophets had the oppertunity to say otherwise they never once alluded to it "being a mistake". I am sure some GA speculated that it "was wrong". I just don't think God thought it was wrong. It is quite revealing that you chose to answer my question the way you did about hte Levites. Dodge ball is in season.