Downside to reflection and foregiveness?

[Jason]

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?

Did I scare Dan off?

[DanGB]

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?

Could someone, anyone, on this thread, please provide to me a copy or refeference to this "policy" that denied the priesthood blessings to African Americans and the date it originated? Please, please, anyone at all! It obviously did not exist at the time the gospel was restored by Joeseph Smith so I am trying to be enlightened by this "policy" all these well read brothers and sisters of mine seem to have seen. Us folks down here in Texas can't find it!

We ask those who want to be critical of our Church to hold us to our own dctrines before reaching conclusions. Ought we not expect the same from ourselves!?!?

[Jason]

Could someone, anyone, on this thread, please provide to me a copy or refeference to this "policy" that denied the priesthood blessings to African Americans and the date it originated?

Does the fact that we don't have a dated and signed revelation from Joseph Smith detailing the conditions of the preisthood ban (which applied to men of African descent, not strictly African Americans) mean that there definitely was no such revelation?

The early leaders of the Church understood that the ban had been put in place, despite a lack of a printed revelation. Do you think they just made it up out of their prejudices?

Oh, and how are you coming on other reasons for women to be denied the priesthood?

[Deborah]

Could someone, anyone, on this thread, please provide to me a copy or refeference to this "policy" that denied the priesthood blessings to African Americans and the date it originated?

You do realize that not all revelations were officially recorded? We have some testimony in journal entries and we have subsequent prophets who received the same revelation. I'm not sure what more there is.

Adam built an altar and made animal sacrifices and in chapter 5 verse 6 we read "And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me." We don't always know why the Lord commands certain things we just do as he commands.

[jwhitlock]

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.

After all this, still beating the same old drum - without providing any kind of quote that supports this.

Discomfort with a policy is not an indication that it was wrong in the first place. Until you can provide any kind of statement or admission that it was wrong, your claim has no foundation.

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

Oh, please. I've read Brother Kimball's writings on the subject; would you like to quote him where he directly says that the ban was an error?

Clearly, President Brown thought the ban was an error. No? Why then did he seek to have it lifted?

CFR, again. Please quote where President Brown said the ban was an error. As has been noted, seeking to have a policy changed does not necessarily mean that the policy was in error! I'll repeat that as often as is necessary. Until you can provide authoritative quote(s) indicating the ban was an error, it is mere conjecture on your part - and unspported at that.

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).

And yet, still again, there is a glaring lack of qualifiers such as "error", "wrong", etc. There is simply no admission there of wrongdoing or error. You cannot extrapolate a desire to change a policy as some kind of solid evidence that the policy is wrong. In fact, what are mentioned are the difficulties the ban is causing - but that's a far different attitude than coming right out and saying it is in error. One can desire the policy to be changed without thinking it is in error. In fact, I find the entire lack of direct statements of error to be rather telling. All you've provided is your own extrapolations, claiming they constitute some kind of admission of error.

They don't. Period.

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.

Olive branch for what? To agree with you that the ban was an error? What kind of a branch were you holding out? How did you expect me to respond, especially when you were providing support to Dan, whose claims would make any member of the Church uncomfortable? Did you not notice that I was actively and specifically opposing his claims that the OD wasn't a revelation? Why would any critic of the Church do that kind of thing?

The problem is, you've laid out - as a member of the Church - a claim of intent by the Church that has no foundation in fact. I find that problematic. I've been on this board too long and seen too many people "claiming" to be faithful members of the Church, while espousing extremely problematic attitudes, to be particularly trusting in these kinds of situations. Not that you may not be what you claim, but again - your claim that the OD is an admission that the ban was an error doesn't give me warm fuzzies.

[paulpatter]

I could care less what Hugh B Brown thought.

Do you also "care less" about what Henry B. Eyring thinks, who--like President Brown--is serving as First Counselor in the First Presidency?

: I am not interested in what thier opinion was of the preisthood ban. What I care about what the will of the Lord is.

And how is the "will of the Lord" made known; i.e., who are his leadership mouthpieces on earth?

: I cannot find any offical teaching that the ban was wrong.

Brigham Young was its author and promoter. He said, "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed because Cain cut off the lives of Abel. . .The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood" (Journal History of the Church, Feb. 13, 1849). Edward L. Kimball, in the article I referenced in a previous post, wrote: "In 1852, Wilford Woodruff reported that Brigham Young, speaking to the Utah territorial legislature, took personal [emphasis added] responsibility for articulating the restriction" (p. 15). In other words, the ban was implemented by what appears to be administrative fiat. There was no revelation. Are you comfortable with that?

: 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. . . ."

Please refer to my preceding statement.

: and therefor OD2 was "an acknowldgement that they were wrong".

OD--2 constitutes an admission that the ban was wrong and had to be changed. If it wasn't wrong, why had it been discussed/debated by Church leaders even before the Civil Rights movement; and why did President Kimball nearly wear himself out seeking to know the Lord's will via a revelation?

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

You referred to my being "called out" by some board members; that's personal.

: 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".

You're speculating here. The issue was highly sensitive; consequently, discussions concerning it--held among the Brethren and some outsiders, including Sterling McMurrin--were, understandably, not made public.

: I am sure some GA speculated that it "was wrong". I just don't think God thought it was wrong.

Think what you will; however, as you say above, it's just your opinion.

: It is quite revealing that you chose to answer my question the way you did about hte Levites. Dodge ball is in season.

Perhaps you can find someone who can explain God's decision; I cannot.

[jwhitlock]

Do you also "care less" about what Henry B. Eyring thinks, who--like President Brown--is serving as First Counselor in the First Presidency?

Here's a CFR again for a direct quote from President Brown that the ban was in error - and not something that you're providing the "interpretation" for.

Because, as has been noted, just because President Brown was uncomfortable with the ban, doesn't mean he understood it to be wrong.

[DanGB]

We have some testimony in journal entries and we have subsequent prophets who received the same revelation.

Can you provide specific statements and references to what you are speaking to here?

[paulpatter]

Here's a CFR again for a direct quote from President Brown that the ban was in error - and not something that you're providing the "interpretation" for.

The account is attributed to Lester Bush in "A History of My Research." You're welcome to look it up.

: Because, as has been noted, just because President Brown was uncomfortable with the ban, doesn't mean he understood it to be wrong.

Amusing. First you question the veracity of the President Brown account (suggesting that it is just my "interpretation"), and then you capitulate and treat it as an established fact (hedging your bets, I assume).

Despite what you believe, the ban was ill-advised at best. It was a policy created by Brigham Young, who used the Cain/Abel story to justify it. According to U of U Prof. Sterling McMurrin, who was "close" to President McKay and met with him quite often, the Prophet said the ban wasn't a revelation and wasn't doctrine (Matters of Conscience: Conversations with Sterling M. McMurrin on Philosophy, Education, and Religion, McMurrin and Newell, Signature Books, 1996, pp. 199-201). Paul H. Dunn received the same answer. He asked President McKay, "What about the blacks?" According to an interview conducted by Gregory Prince, the Prophet replied, "Paul, that has never been a doctrine, but always a policy" (Kimball Papers).

Astonishingly, you continue to defend the ban as if it were doctrine and received by revelation.

[jwhitlock]

The account is attributed to Lester Bush in "A History of My Research." You're welcome to look it up.

It's not my job to find your quotes for you. CFR, again, of a direct quote of President Brown's telling us the ban was an error.

Either you don't understand what it means to provide a direct quote - which calls into question your claim of working for BYU for that long - or you simply are blowing unsubstantiated smoke.

Amusing. First you question the veracity of the President Brown account (suggesting that it is just my "interpretation"), and then you capitulate and treat it as an established fact (hedging your bets, I assume).

The only thing I've questioned is your interpretation. Seems like you're doing a lousy job also of understanding my remarks, since you totally missed the boat with this statement.

Despite what you believe, the ban was ill-advised at best. It was a policy created by Brigham Young, who used the Cain/Abel story to justify it. According to U of U Prof. Sterling McMurrin, who was "close" to President McKay and met with him quite often, the Prophet said the ban wasn't a revelation and wasn't doctrine (Matters of Conscience: Conversations with Sterling M. McMurrin on Philosophy, Education, and Religion, McMurrin and Newell, Signature Books, 1996, pp. 199-201). Paul H. Dunn received the same answer. He asked President McKay, "What about the blacks?" According to an interview conducted by Gregory Prince, the Prophet replied, "Paul, that has never been a doctrine, but always a policy" (Kimball Papers).

The question is not whether it was policy or doctrine. That's not been part of the discussion. The question is - and I keep repeating it - "Where are the quotes from the brethren telling us that the ban was an error and was wrong?" I don't care squat for your interpretation based on unsubstantiated assumptions - which is all we've been getting from you.

Astonishingly, you continue to defend the ban as if it were doctrine and received by revelation.

I've done nothing of the sort; how about another CFR on that one? Would you like to tell me where I said that?

You evidently have a huge ability for making assumptions and interpretations without any regard for the facts.

So, again - CFR, CFR, CFR for a quote from President Brown saying the ban was in error. That should be rather simple to do, but you've declined to do it.

And CFR on any authoritative quote from a general authority specifically stating that the ban was wrong and was an error. It should be simple for one as distinguished as you claim to be, to provide the clear evidence for the statements you're making.

But you're not. That is revealing about the sandy foundation you've built on.

[DanGB]

As long as the demand for all theses CFRs seems important for some, as it should be, can we get any, some, maybe even just one CFR for the policy and it's introduction that took the priesthood blessing away from blacks in the first place???!!!

Anything!!!!!!

Just a bit of reciprocity being asked for here!

[Deborah]

As long as the demand for all theses CFRs seems important for some, as it should be, can we get any, some, maybe even just one CFR for the policy and it's introduction that took the priesthood blessing away from blacks in the first place???!!!

You keep ignoring OD 2 itself which we keep repeating to you, which clearly states: "a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members". If a revelation had been received to release the ban then a revelation had to be given to put it in place. It is logic. Furthermore in the letter included we read "we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance. He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood."

You keep asking for what is already self-evident. We also know from the historical accounts that other prophets prayed for the same thing and did not receive the response that the ban could be lifted. The evidence is clearly there for those who have eyes to see.

[Avatar4321]

Perhaps you can find someone who can explain God's decision; I cannot.

And yet youre whole point to being on this thread is to demand that we explain God's decision. Funny...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you also "care less" about what Henry B. Eyring thinks, who--like President Brown--is serving as First Counselor in the First Presidency?

I don't really care what he says when is not acting as the 1st presidency. And unless he is giving a talk in GC or in an offical capacity I don't care. You still havn't produced a quote from a GC talk. So as it stands you have offered only the opinion of one of the brothern.

And how is the "will of the Lord" made known; i.e., who are his leadership mouthpieces on earth?

From prophets. But prohpets are only prohpets when acting as such. And they are acting in such when there is a GC talk or an offical pronouncment. Something in a journal or a talk at BYU just doesn't cut it.

Brigham Young was its author and promoter. He said, "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed because Cain cut off the lives of Abel. . .The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood" (Journal History of the Church, Feb. 13, 1849). Edward L. Kimball, in the article I referenced in a previous post, wrote: "In 1852, Wilford Woodruff reported that Brigham Young, speaking to the Utah territorial legislature, took personal [emphasis added] responsibility for articulating the restriction" (p. 15). In other words, the ban was implemented by what appears to be administrative fiat. There was no revelation. Are you comfortable with that?

Well that again is his opinion of that matter. And he is entightled to it. but since there is nothing said over the pulpit at GC it doesn't stand.

Please refer to my preceding statement.

Why?

OD--2 constitutes an admission that the ban was wrong and had to be changed. If it wasn't wrong, why had it been discussed/debated by Church leaders even before the Civil Rights movement; and why did President Kimball nearly wear himself out seeking to know the Lord's will via a revelation?

Um no it doesn't but I am done here unless you can substantiate your claim, with something in an offical capacity. A GC talk will do.

You referred to my being "called out" by some board members; that's personal.

What ever. .

You're speculating here. The issue was highly sensitive; consequently, discussions concerning it--held among the Brethren and some outsiders, including Sterling McMurrin--were, understandably, not made public.

I got news for you here, I am not the one speculating.

Think what you will; however, as you say above, it's just your opinion.

Yeah, because you don't have something given from some one speaking in an offical capacity, (A GC talk)and I am the one speculating?

Perhaps you can find someone who can explain God's decision; I cannot.

That is too bad. It seems that you have a double standard in this regard. There was a priesthood restriction back in the day were only the Levites could hold it. Then later there is a priesthood restriction were only the people who have cainanite blood cannot hold the priesthood, and you admit that the latter was "a mistake". If you are consistant you would admit the former is a mistake too. But you can't because it is obvious that God chooses whom he will to hold His priesthood. Surely you see this.

So, again - CFR, CFR, CFR for a quote from President Brown saying the ban was in error. That should be rather simple to do, but you've declined to do it.

And CFR on any authoritative quote from a general authority specifically stating that the ban was wrong and was an error. It should be simple for one as distinguished as you claim to be, to provide the clear evidence for the statements you're making.

But you're not. That is revealing about the sandy foundation you've built on.

Looks as if we are on teh same page. This really isn't that difficult to understand, is it?

[ebeddoulos]

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.

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

There is a need, however, for you to learn to read contextually.

What you call

[Jason]

As long as the demand for all theses CFRs seems important for some, as it should be, can we get any, some, maybe even just one CFR for the policy and it's introduction that took the priesthood blessing away from blacks in the first place???!!!

Anything!!!!!!

Just a bit of reciprocity being asked for here!

Hey there Dan. Got any response to my question about reasons the priesthood is being witheld from women today?

Just wondering.

[DanGB]

Hey there Dan. Got any response to my question about reasons the priesthood is being witheld from women today?

Just wondering.

Jason,

Sort of a ridiculous and nonsensical question isn't it!? Spend a moment and think about it first. What blessings and eternal slavation have women been denied without having it?

A bit different situation for the blacks prior to 78.

[Jason]

Sort of a ridiculous and nonsensical question isn't it!?

Not at all. You seemed to be saying that the only reason for the Church to withold the priesthood from someone is because the Church perceives them as unworthy. Women are an obvious counter-argument to that point, and one you haven't addressed.

Either there are valid reasons for witholding the priesthood other than the worthiness of the individual or all women are considered unworthy.

Which do you think is the case?

Spend a moment and think about it first. What blessings and eternal slavation have women been denied without having it?

A bit different situation for the blacks prior to 78.

Are you claiming that people of african descent (not everyone who could be described as "black") were being denied eternal salvation prior to 1978 because they could not hold the priesthood?

As you say, think about it for a moment.

Which particular blessings do you believe God was witholding form them because they couldn't hold the priesthood?

[DanGB]

Which particular blessings do you believe God was witholding form them because they couldn't hold the priesthood?

I don't think "God" ever withheld anything from anyone who was willing to accept Him. I think the Church made a mistake in it's spiritual treatment and perhaps it's theological interpretation of Chistian and Church doctrine with respect to blacks prior to 1978!

As I have said before, that is why, regardless of what said by President Kimball (who was a great man), I cannot accept OD2 as revelation as I believe God never wanted to withhold His blessings from blacks to begin with.

Does that qualify me for a court of love? I hardly think so. Truth is that most members I ever discuss this topic with are in agreement with me privately. But then living outside of Utah in a much more integrated population probably has it's influences on reflections.

[Deborah]

As I have said before, that is why, regardless of what said by President Kimball (who was a great man), I cannot accept OD2 as revelation as I believe God never wanted to withhold His blessings from blacks to begin with.

So you are calling the Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve liars?

[Lightbearer]

It's not so relevant because, since the gospel was restored, He never asked us to treat brethern of a different skin color differently! The Church never received His instruction to do so. We can try all the rationalizations we want. But can anyone point to our doctrine or revelations where our Heavenly Father singled out blacks or African Americans for denial of the priesthood blessing?

We constantly ask our critics to hold us to our doctrine. Why can't we ask ourselves to do the same!!!

I admit my beliefs on this issue may be different than many here but I have never substituted individual thought and reasoning to the comfort of group think/acceptance on this issue.

I have no animosity w those who disagree. I probably would just challenge them on evidence, facts and support that the Church would stand behind in an official capacity as well.

The only thing I can point to is this reference:

(Abraham 1:21-26) "Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land. The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden; When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land. Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood."

This is where we get the notion of the priesthood being denied to certain races, specifically African American lineage. Why the curse was given we do not know, God has not revealed it. But in 1978 He has through a living prophet lifted the curse. If you can't accept it, I guess that is your problem, but please do not try to say there was never any reason for the ban.

[DanGB]

So you are calling the Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve liars?

My Dear Sister Deborah,

One of God's greatest gift given to us was intellect.

"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" (1Thessolonians 5:28)!

I think the Church has so much to offer. But I am just not one who subscribes to: "when the Prophet has spoken, the thinking is done"!

I have already answered this question of yours several times on this thread. I believe that Pres Kimball acted from prayer where many before him would not. And for that, we should all be greatfull to him for his courage. If you find the need to interpret my answer anything different from what I have said, take the gavel and judge me! I certainly cannot stop you on this board. Perhaps only the mods can!

[paulpatter]

It's not my job to find your quotes for you.

Ah, yes, 'tis an onerous task, especially when I provide the name of the author and title of his/her book or article.

: CFR, again, of a direct quote of President Brown's telling us the ban was an error.

You have created yet another strawman (I assume you understand the meaning of that term). In Post 96 I quote Edward L. Kimball (recall the BYU Studies article) as stating the following: "Hugh B. Brown appears to have been the most [emphasis added because other General Authorities were also concerned about the prohibition] 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).

Enter your strawman: Based on that information, I said it was clear that President Brown regarded the ban as wrong and needed to be changed. Consequently, the "direct quote" from President Brown exists only in your imagination. My interpretation is further strengthened by the fact that as an alternative to lifting the ban, Brother Brown "suggested to the First Presidency that perhaps blacks could be given at least the Aaronic Priesthood" (p. 21, footnote 32, which reads: "Bush [Lester], "History of My Research," 2 n. 2, citing McKay, Office Journal, January 9, 1962, and June 7, 1963, copy in possession of the author"). Based on those facts, fair-minded, objective individuals would conclude that President Brown considered the prohibition wrong and sought to change it.

: Either you don't understand what it means to provide a direct quote - which calls into question your claim of working for BYU for that long - or you simply are blowing unsubstantiated smoke.

Getting a mite desperate, are you? You come perilously close to making an ad hominem attack by suggesting I lied about my BYU service. As for my supposed lack of understanding of the mechanics of attribution, be advised that I am well versed in MLA, APA, and other style guides. You, however, appear to not be well versed in understanding the difference between a hyphen and dash (junior high school-level English).

: The only thing I've questioned is your interpretation. Seems like you're doing a lousy job also of understanding my remarks, since you totally missed the boat with this statement.

For how long have sentence and paragraph transitions been a problem for you?

: The question is not whether it was policy or doctrine. That's not been part of the discussion. The question is - and I keep repeating it - "Where are the quotes from the brethren telling us that the ban was an error and was wrong?" I don't care squat for your interpretation based on unsubstantiated assumptions - which is all we've been getting from you.

Are you really naive enough to believe that the brethren are wont to criticize official Church policy in public? Discussions of sensitive issues typically occur in private, closed-door meetings. U. of U. Professor Sterling McMurrin, for example, met multiple times with General Authorities, particularly with President McKay.

For a fascinating account of a meeting involving President Joseph Fielding Smith and McMurrin, see pages 191-192 of Matters of Conscience: Conversations with Sterling M. McMurrin.

It's your position, apparently, that the ban wasn't wrong but, nevertheless, President Kimball nearly wore himself out--jeopardized his health--seeking to end it. When he met with the Twelve in the temple and got on his knees and pleaded with the Lord to know if it was right to end the ban, the brethren knew the answer even as he prayed. And the fact is, they were overjoyed with that knowledge. Apostle David Haight said, "I was there. I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards. We just left quietly and went back to our offices" (p. 57 of E. Kimball's book). Apostle Marvin J. Ashton called it "The most intense spiritual impression I've ever felt" (p. 57). These brethren, together with many other General Authorities, knew the ban was wrong and that it was in the process of being changed.

: I've done nothing of the sort; how about another CFR on that one? Would you like to tell me where I said that?

Naw, it's not worth the effort.

: You evidently have a huge ability for making assumptions and interpretations without any regard for the facts.

You mean the sort of thing that you here ably, compliantly demonstrate?

: So, again - CFR, CFR, CFR for a quote from President Brown saying the ban was in error. That should be rather simple to do, but you've declined to do it.

As I note above, the quote from President Brown resides in your straw-strewn imagination.

: And CFR on any authoritative quote from a general authority specifically stating that the ban was wrong and was an error. It should be simple for one as distinguished as you claim to be, to provide the clear evidence for the statements you're making.

Alas, you will find that "quote" in OD--2, signed by the First Presidency. That document's very existence is compelling evidence that the ban was wrong and had to be changed. And oh, gosh, thanks for calling me "distinguished."

[Deborah]

One of God's greatest gift given to us was intellect.

Your calling the prophet of the church and the Quorum of Twelve liars when they said they received a "revelation" has nothing to do with using our intellect.

[Jason]

I don't think "God" ever withheld anything from anyone who was willing to accept Him.

So no problem then. Regardless of whether they held the priesthood or not, no one had any blessings witheld.

Is a mistake that doesn't actually withold any blessings still a mistake?

I think the Church made a mistake in it's spiritual treatment and perhaps it's theological interpretation of Chistian and Church doctrine with respect to blacks prior to 1978!

Obviously. Do you think that witholding the priesthood from women is a similar mistake? If not, why not?

As I have said before, that is why, regardless of what said by President Kimball (who was a great man), I cannot accept OD2 as revelation as I believe God never wanted to withhold His blessings from blacks to begin with.

So President Kimball was a great man, but he was lying when he said OD2 was a revelation?

Does that qualify me for a court of love? I hardly think so. Truth is that most members I ever discuss this topic with are in agreement with me privately. But then living outside of Utah in a much more integrated population probably has it's influences on reflections.

Very nice. "Most members are hypocrites, becuase they agree with me in private but put on a different front in public. And I know more than you people do anyway because I live outside of your sheltered Utah existence in a place more conducive to constructive thought on the subject."

While you're at it, why don't you give us all paper cuts and pour lemon juice on them?