Downside to reflection and foregiveness?

[jwhitlock]

Oh, I see. You have no answer to the fact that you have made 25 posts on this thread without using a single CFR (you have made a few inadequate allusions to sources). So unable to posit a credible response to your "25 post" problem, you resort to the transparently bogus claim that my post is "incoherent." Too, too funny.

Clueless, as usual. I'll explain to you what "CFR" means. "Call For References".

It's used when someone makes a claim without anything to back it up. Perhaps you, in your babbling, meant that I hadn't provided References - not Calls For Reference. Did you ask for References from me? No. Did you make claims that the leaders of the Church thought the ban was an error, and wrong? Yes. Did I Call For References on that? Yes. Have you provided anything specific where the leaders of the Church say the ban was an error, and wrong? No.

That's why your post is incoherent. Try to get it straight.

Not quite right. You have focused on the notion that Apostle Brown never said anything to suggest that he wanted the ban lifted. That is wrong, and I have posted two quotations--with credible attribution--to prove it.

This is simply false. I have asked where President Brown said that the ban was an error and wrong. You have dishonestly twisted it to claim that I said he didn't want the ban lifted. I've corrected you twice, now. Do you read for comprehension at all?

In your dreams.

You claimed that President Brown found the ban to be in error, and wrong. Then you admitted that he never said that. That amounts to no evidence for your claims.

Blatantly false, and I think you know it.

You have stated over and over that not only OD2, but President Brown's comments constitute an admission that the ban was an error, and wrong. You have acknowledged no other possible interpretation of their comments, despite them being pointed out to you. Or are you backtracking, now?

Of course, there were multiple reasons; however, your clause that begins "such as" introduces the reason why many individuals--not just Apostle Brown--wanted the ban to end. That is made clear in OD--2. Here, you make the error of treating it (extending the priesthood to all worthy men) as a subordinate reason.

Lots of spin in this statement; however, why not just be honest and acknowledge that President Brown just perhaps didn't consider the ban "wrong" and an "error"? And that maybe, just maybe, you don't know what he was really thinking? And also, that there may have been other reasons that he wanted the ban lifted?

Yes, and those I have abundantly supplied, I have fabricated, including their sources.

You have provided no authoritative, clear quotes by any leader of the Church saying - clearly, again - that the ban was an error, and wrong.

You've provided quotes that they wanted the ban lifted, and then supplied your interpretation that it means they thought the ban was an error, and wrong.

This has been pointed out to you over and over again, and yet you continue to misrepresent what you have done. Are you that wilfully ignorant, or are you just dishonest - as in the way you keep misrepresenting what I have said?

Are you aware that many school districts offer remedial reading courses? Check 'em out.

Childish.

Your allegation of intellectual dishonesty on my part is yet another defensive maneuver on your part. The strategy is to attack the messenger, rather than to address the message. It isn't any more complicated than that. Yup--25 posts and not a single CFR

.

Since you continue to have no clue what "CFR" stands for, I'll simply call you on this. I've called for CFR's in most of my posts here.

If you'd actually like to come back to the real world, and let me know what you're looking for a reference on - for a claim I made - I'd be glad to consider it. But if you'd like to just continue babbling about CFRs without understanding what they mean, then by all means - continue to make a fool of yourself.

How does that old adage go? "You can lead a horse to water, but you. . . ."

"... can't make an apostate supply the quotes that he's asked for."

CFR.

Well, gee, why don't you try asking the questions again once you get your syntax straightened out?

Because you're not interested in understanding anything at this point.

I asked that in response to your assertion that the Brethren do or have criticized Church policy in public settings. No they don't and no they haven't (with the one exception I noted involving Sterling McMurrin and President Joseph Fielding Smith; and possibly a few others). I asked you for a CFR--an example, if you will--of an instance in which one of the Brethren has publicly criticized a Church policy or position. You have provided none. BTW, it's my understanding that any member who does such a thing is a candidate for a Church court.

If the ban wasn't a mistake in 1978 and for multiple years leading up to that year, why did it culminate in the issuance of OD--2? It's instructive to study the various rationales for instituting the ban, each of which is readily assailable. I respect Church leaders/members who simply admit, "We just don't know. . .only God knows."

Oh, I see. In your confused posting style, you were actually asking me for a reference as to when a General Authority criticized Church policy. You really need to figure out how to write clearly.

J. Golden Kimball comes to mind. President Grant used to get very frustrated with him.

There's your example. Now, if you will please answer my CFR finally, and give me an authoritative quote from a Church leader that the ban was wrong and in error? Of course, if you can't find any, you could just admit you're wrong - which you are.

Repeat what (again)?

That Church leaders don't ever criticize Church policy in public. Jeesh, you're clueless.

What kinds of things?

The ability to comprehend. Pills can help ADD, too.

I'm developing a severe pain that starts at the back of my neck and runs up the side. . . .

Glad to know that you see yourself as stiff-necked.

Arrgh. . .now the pain is in my eyes accompanied by a ringing in my ears. Ooooo, really hurts.

That comes from misrepresenting what I said. A little intellectual honesty on your part will go a long way towards fixing that.

[jwhitlock]

But where did I say church leaders were, as you have specifically accused me of, with total disrespect for truth and facts, "are liars"??

Take a look at my post #147. It's spelled out fairly clearly. You can either explain what you meant (this will be interesting) or retract your "despite what President Kimball said" inference that they were lying.

[jwhitlock]

So (heh, heh), President Brown "wanted the ban ended" because there was nothing wrong with it. Is that your position? Hilarious.

OK, fine.

As I explain above, if President Brown wanted the ban to end (as he did), it is obvious that he thought its continuance was wrong. It amounts to the same thing. But, inasmuch as you are so aggrieved (to the point of accusing me--again--of dishonesty). . .I'm sorry.

There, feel better?

What a completely false apology for your bit of dishonesty.

Evidently what seems "obvious" to you blinds you to quite a bit of what people really are saying. You have no problem being dishonest in your representations; that much is clear.

So, let's make it clear once again. President Brown wanted the ban lifted. He said so, but he never said the ban was wrong or an error. Period. What's obvious to any clear-thinking person is that you're interpretation of his intent is your own - and not anything that can be readily extrapolated from President Brown's remarks.

That you would assume you could blithely twist my claim that "President Brown never said the ban was wrong or an error" to instead say that I said "President brown never wanted the ban ended" is an indication of some incredible intellectual dishonesty on your part. That you then post this ridiculous excuse for an "apology" - without really admitting you were wrong in misrepresenting me - is very revealing about the flawed way you approach things.

In all of this inanity that you've posted, you still are sticking to your claim that the leaders of the Church thought the ban was an error and wrong. You're portraying this as some kind of self-evident truth, and declining to respond to CFRs for clear quotes to support your interpretation. Your reasoning is shallow and flawed. You're dishonest in how you portray what others say. You ignore correction and continue to perpetuate dishonest statements. You don't respond with any meaningful comments to any point brought up against your claim. And then you continue to parrot over and over and over again the point that the OD and President Brown's remarks constitute an admission that the ban was wrong and an error.

So, when did they fire you from BYU for apostasy?

You are out of line and banned from the thread for personal attacks.

[ed2276]

The entire Declaration (I'll say it again) constitutes an admission that the prohibition was wrong and therefore was not being merely "fine tuned" but, in fact, completely reversed.

You may say it as many times as you wish, however there is nothing in the Declaration itself which admits of wrongdoing or apology. Whatever admission of wrong you think you see in the Declaration is nothing more than one of your own construction and wishful thinking.

How could the Church reverse the prohibition without acknowledging--tacitly if you wish--that it was faulty and had to be changed?

A mere recitation of fact in the Declaration (the priesthood was once withheld, but is now available to all) is not an admission of a past wrong. This is especially the case since along with the fact that it was acknowledged that the priesthood had once been withheld it was also noted in the Declaration that at the very time the priesthood was being withheld there was a hope that in the future the priesthood would no longer be withheld.Rather than the change in practice from withholding to no longer withholding being an admission of past wrongdoing at the time the priesthood was being withheld, the Declaration was simply stating the present fulfillment of past hopes.

LDS would not say that the declaration which resulted in the current prohibition on the past practice of polygamy is an admission that its practice in the past was wrong. Neither should we assume that the present bestowal of the priesthood on those to whom it would have been denied in the past is an admission that the past prohibition was wrong--especially since there is no such admission of wrongdoing, tacit or otherwise, within the text of the Declaration itself.

[paulpatter]

Clueless, as usual. I'll explain to you what "CFR" means. "Call For References".

It's used when someone makes a claim without anything to back it up. Perhaps you, in your babbling, meant that I hadn't provided References - not Calls For Reference.

Good point--one that for you, unfortunately, is self-incriminating. Why? It's an admission that you in your 25 posts failed to comply with your own counsel; i.e., you didn't provide any references of your own other than vague allusions to sources.

: Did you ask for References from me? No.

Another self-incriminating admission: You didn't know--on your own--that you were supposed to validate your claims with references to your sources. Lamentable.

: Did you make claims that the leaders of the Church thought the ban was an error, and wrong? Yes. Did I Call For References on that? Yes. Have you provided anything specific where the leaders of the Church say the ban was an error, and wrong? No.

Even a cursory review of the facts shows that--well before 1978--Church leaders sought a revelation that would end the ban. I'm surprised you seem to be unaware of that. In November of 1972, in a media interview, President Lee said: "We must believe in the justice of God [emphasis added]. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for the right time" (L. Brent Goates, Harold B. Lee, page 506). What do you suppose President Lee meant when he said "We must believe in the justice of God"? Wasn't that an admission that the restriction constituted an injustice? And then, in addition to the Hugh B. Brown statements, there is this overarching statement by Edward Kimball: "Most General Authorities tried to avoid public discussion of the topic" (p. 21 of Edward Kimball's article, previously cited). Why did they try to avoid "public discussion of the topic?" Finally, there are the expressions of joy made by members of the Twelve when the revelation was received. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to conclude, based on these facts--especially the statement by President Lee--that the Brethren knew the restriction constituted an injustice.

: That's why your post is incoherent. Try to get it straight.

Read the foregoing text.

: This is simply false. I have asked where President Brown said that the ban was an error and wrong. You have dishonestly twisted it to claim that I said he didn't want the ban lifted. I've corrected you twice, now. Do you read for comprehension at all?

My point has been that President Brown wanted the ban eliminated. The two statements by him that I have referenced make that clear. Short of ending the ban, he even proposed that perhaps worthy black males could be given the Aaronic Priesthood. If you have corrected me regarding your feelings about lifting the ban, fine.

: You claimed that President Brown found the ban to be in error, and wrong.

And my claim was correct. Otherwise, he wouldn't have repeatedly tried to have the ban lifted.

: Then you admitted that he never said that. That amounts to no evidence for your claims.

You demanded a direct quote in which President Brown boldly stated that the ban was wrong. I told you that no such quote existed; however, two other quotes by him do exist, and I have cited them. They provide compelling evidence that President Brown regarded the ban as a mistake. You are unwilling to accept that evidence; hence, that's your problem--not mine.

: You have stated over and over that not only OD2, but President Brown's comments constitute an admission that the ban was an error, and wrong. You have acknowledged no other possible interpretation of their comments, despite them being pointed out to you. Or are you backtracking, now?

Not one inch.

: Lots of spin in this statement; however, why not just be honest and acknowledge that President Brown just perhaps didn't consider the ban "wrong" and an "error"? And that maybe, just maybe, you don't know what he was really thinking? And also, that there may have been other reasons that he wanted the ban lifted?

You, however, do know what he was thinking and have chosen to ignore the two quotations I have cited.

: You have provided no authoritative, clear quotes by any leader of the Church saying - clearly, again - that the ban was an error, and wrong.

I suggest you ponder President Lee's statement (above)

: You've provided quotes that they wanted the ban lifted, and then supplied your interpretation that it means they thought the ban was an error, and wrong.

Hmmm. . .so they wanted the ban lifted because __________________________. Please fill in the blank. Try to be credible.

: This has been pointed out to you over and over again, and yet you continue to misrepresent what you have done. Are you that wilfully ignorant, or are you just dishonest - as in the way you keep misrepresenting what I have said?

This personal attack drivel isn't worthy of a response.

Fortunately, I'm out of time. That's a shame because the rest of your post is so, ah, uh, magnificent--truly exemplary.

[jwhitlock]

Good point--one that for you, unfortunately, is self-incriminating. Why? It's an admission that you in your 25 posts failed to comply with your own counsel; i.e., you didn't provide any references of your own other than vague allusions to sources.

Another self-incriminating admission: You didn't know--on your own--that you were supposed to validate your claims with references to your sources. Lamentable.

You still evidently have no comprehension of that fact that you made the claim - not me - and you were the one who didn't provide specific references supporting your claim. I made no claims other than to call you on your unsubstantiated assumption - and now you're making some kind of inane claim that I had to provide references for something.

You really just don't get it.

Even a cursory review of the facts shows that--well before 1978--Church leaders sought a revelation that would end the ban. I'm surprised you seem to be unaware of that. In November of 1972, in a media interview, President Lee said: "We must believe in the justice of God [emphasis added]. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for the right time" (L. Brent Goates, Harold B. Lee, page 506). What do you suppose President Lee meant when he said "We must believe in the justice of God"? Wasn't that an admission that the restriction constituted an injustice? And then, in addition to the Hugh B. Brown statements, there is this overarching statement by Edward Kimball: "Most General Authorities tried to avoid public discussion of the topic" (p. 21 of Edward Kimball's article, previously cited). Why did they try to avoid "public discussion of the topic?" Finally, there are the expressions of joy made by members of the Twelve when the revelation was received. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to conclude, based on these facts--especially the statement by President Lee--that the Brethren knew the restriction constituted an injustice.

As has been noted, we are all aware that many Church leaders wanted the ban ended. Yet you still make false representations confusing ending the ban with it being an "injustice" and an "error" and "wrong". This is simply continued dishonesty on your part.

Interesting how you're the only one claiming that it's clear that OD2 constitutes an admission of wrongdoing, error, or (now) injustice. You're basically out of step.

Read the foregoing text.

And still no acknowledgment from you as to how you've been babbling without understanding concerning CFRs and their meanings.

Head in the sand.

My point has been that President Brown wanted the ban eliminated. The two statements by him that I have referenced make that clear. Short of ending the ban, he even proposed that perhaps worthy black males could be given the Aaronic Priesthood. If you have corrected me regarding your feelings about lifting the ban, fine.

You've been corrected about your dishonest misrepresentation of what I said, and all I've gotten back is this kind of snippy answer. And, as has been noted before, wanting the ban lifted does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing, error, or injustice. Period.

That's where your inability to provide specific quotes to that effect has gotten you into trouble. Your unsubstantiated inference about what President Brown or OD2 mean is irrelevant; there's simply no support for it.

And my claim was correct. Otherwise, he wouldn't have repeatedly tried to have the ban lifted.

And here's where you again make the assertion that the only explanation for OD2 is that the ban was wrong. Yet it continues to be only your interpretation, and one that is not supported by any direct evidence.

You demanded a direct quote in which President Brown boldly stated that the ban was wrong. I told you that no such quote existed; however, two other quotes by him do exist, and I have cited them. They provide compelling evidence that President Brown regarded the ban as a mistake. You are unwilling to accept that evidence; hence, that's your problem--not mine.

As has been noted by others here, your "evidence" is not compelling at all. In fact, it's fabricating primary intent out of the flimsiest of connections.

Let's make it clear to you: you have no direct quotes, so you have no evidence. Period.

Not one inch.

A pity. On such false foundations is ultimate apostasy built.

You, however, do know what he was thinking and have chosen to ignore the two quotations I have cited.

I never said I knew what he was thinking. That was your claim. Try to keep it straight.

I suggest you ponder President Lee's statement (above)

And yet again, I have to point out to you that President Lee's statement does not contain any admission of error, wrongdoing or injustice.

Hmmm. . .so they wanted the ban lifted because __________________________. Please fill in the blank. Try to be credible.

President Kimball put it best, when he stated that it was time to move the work forward to the next level. He petitioned the Lord about removing the ban so as to make that easier to do. And you will note that there was never, ever, one admission on inference of wrongdoing, error, or injustice. Not one.

This personal attack drivel isn't worthy of a response.

You have exhibited unflinching intellectual dishonesty in this whole process. In fact, the whole tone of your posts inspired me to use your very own methodology to infer something out of your comments for which there is no direct quote. And my question has all of the validity of your claim that OD2 constitutes an admission that the ban was an error.

So, in the spirit of your posting, here's my question again:

When were you fired from BYU for apostasy?

[Jason]

This thread is going downhill fast. Dan, have a look at my last post and see if you can answer some of my questions.

[paulpatter]

You still evidently have no comprehension of that fact that you made the claim - not me - and you were the one who didn't provide specific references supporting your claim.

I have provided multiple, detailed references with attribution, including quoted text. Most recently, I cited President Lee as stating--in a 1972 media interview regarding the ban--the following: "We must believe in the justice of God." I asked you what you thought President Lee meant. No need, though, for you to respond (which you won't anyway) because the answer is obvious; i.e. he perceived the restriction as an injustice.

You incorrectly assume that if one wishes to refute a claim, he/she need not provide references. In other words, you imagine that only the proponent is obligated to provide references. Wrong. Perhaps that explains why none of your posts give attribution to sources or include (as best as I can recall) any quoted material.

: I made no claims other than to call you on your unsubstantiated assumption - and now you're making some kind of inane claim that I had to provide references for something.

This reinforces my conclusion that you think your undocumented opinion is sufficient to refute my thesis. Of course you have to provide references regardless of which position you take in a debate. Duh.

: You really just don't get it.

Speaking of "getting it," it's manifestly clear that you don't understand the process of inductive reasoning (sometimes called simply "induction"). In that process, the proponent of a position uses specific facts or events or case histories or statements or eye-witness accounts--the list goes on--to formulate and prove his/her position. That is what I have done--not with "babbling" as you suppose, but with credible documentation of events, statements, etc.

: As has been noted, we are all aware that many Church leaders wanted the ban ended. Yet you still make false representations confusing ending the ban with it being an "injustice" and an "error" and "wrong". This is simply continued dishonesty on your part.

The specifics I have described make it difficult for any rational individual to reach any conclusion other than that the reason "that many Church leaders wanted the ban ended" is because it was precisely what I have characterized it as being. OD-2 alludes to that fact: ". . .to extend [emphasis added] to every worthy member of the Church all the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords"* and "witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld. . . ." And so does President Lee's statement about "justice." And so does Apostle Hugh Brown's repeated efforts to have the ban lifted. And so does the joy exhibited by the Twelve and other General Authorities--as well as members at large--when the revelation was disclosed. *In other words, worthy members had been deprived of "all the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords." That was an injustice.

: Interesting how you're the only one claiming that it's clear that OD2 constitutes an admission of wrongdoing, error, or (now) injustice. You're basically out of step.

By that "reasoning," so was Joseph Smith when he declared--based on the First Vision--that all churches were wrong.

: And still no acknowledgment from you as to how you've been babbling without understanding concerning CFRs and their meanings.

Ah yes, a matter of surpassing importance. I clarified that in an earlier post, which you choose to ignore.

: You've been corrected about your dishonest misrepresentation of what I said, and all I've gotten back is this kind of snippy answer.

". . .dishonest misrepresentation": Hmmm. . .are you suggesting there is such a thing as "honest misrepresentation"?

: And, as has been noted before, wanting the ban lifted does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing, error, or injustice. Period.

That's right. Truth to tell, it was lifted because ________________________________________.

: That's where your inability to provide specific quotes to that effect has gotten you into trouble. Your unsubstantiated inference about what President Brown or OD2 mean is irrelevant; there's simply no support for it. . . . And here's where you again make the assertion that the only explanation for OD2 is that the ban was wrong. Yet it continues to be only your interpretation, and one that is not supported by any direct evidence.

I have provided quotes and attributions that are a required part of induction, which you don't understand. 'Tis a pity. (Why should I expect you to understand induction when you don't even know that the "con" side in a debate is obligated to provide credible references?)

: As has been noted by others here, your "evidence" is not compelling at all. In fact, it's fabricating primary intent out of the flimsiest of connections."

Apostle Brown: flimsy. President Lee: flimsy. Two phrases in OD--2 (as well as its very existence): flimsy. Statements by the Twelve after the revelation was made known: flimsy.

: Let's make it clear to you: you have no direct quotes, so you have no evidence. Period.

False. I have provided direct quotes, and I have referenced them. You, in lamentable contrast, have provided none (and are so woefully uninformed about debate that you believe you are not required to provide them). Repeated accusations that I am "dishonest"--which is your fumbling attempt to refute my thesis--are not sufficient.

. . .

When were you fired from BYU for apostasy?

You just crossed the line; consequently, I won't respond to any posts you direct to me. I will, however, report you for repeated ad hominem attacks. (BTW, I see that one of your threads has been "declined." Makes perfect sense.)

[Hamba Tuhan]

The specifics I have described make it difficult for any rational individual to reach any conclusion other than that the reason "that many Church leaders wanted the ban ended" is because it was precisely what I have characterized it as being.

I respectfully disagree. Of course, perhaps I'm not a 'rational individual.'

[paulpatter]

I respectfully disagree. Of course, perhaps I'm not a 'rational individual.'

You have every right to disagree. Thanks for the feedback.

[divinenature]

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?

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

Hi Jason, I have a question about your comment here although not directed at me. I hope that's okay.

Do you really believe that the priesthood and temple ordinances are not blessings? Because we hear all the time about the blessings of the temple. So it seems like not being able to be sealed in the temple would be having a blessing witheld. There are also several scriptures that tell what the blessings of the priesthood are. So blessings were witheld according to the things I've been taught.

Why were black women of African descent barred from the temple if priesthood is not a prerequisite for women? It seems like the PH ban included them unless there was a seperate temple ban.

[jwhitlock]

I have provided multiple, detailed references with attribution, including quoted text. Most recently, I cited President Lee as stating--in a 1972 media interview regarding the ban--the following: "We must believe in the justice of God." I asked you what you thought President Lee meant. No need, though, for you to respond (which you won't anyway) because the answer is obvious; i.e. he perceived the restriction as an injustice.

Your references have not, in any way, supported your claims. As has been noted, what is "obvious" to you is not obvious to anyone else. Without any supporting, clear quotes - as you were asked to provide - your interpretations are worthless.

You incorrectly assume that if one wishes to refute a claim, he/she need not provide references. In other words, you imagine that only the proponent is obligated to provide references. Wrong. Perhaps that explains why none of your posts give attribution to sources or include (as best as I can recall) any quoted material.

Only if I make a counter claim as to intent - which I did not. In fact, you never did ask me for any kind of CFR before you started babbling irrelevantly about them. You made the claim, you were asked to provide the support. You did not.

This crap about references and me is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Figure it out.

This reinforces my conclusion that you think your undocumented opinion is sufficient to refute my thesis. Of course you have to provide references regardless of which position you take in a debate. Duh.

My "undocumented opinion" is that you didn't supply any support for your claim. This whole thread backs that up.

Speaking of "getting it," it's manifestly clear that you don't understand the process of inductive reasoning (sometimes called simply "induction"). In that process, the proponent of a position uses specific facts or events or case histories or statements or eye-witness accounts--the list goes on--to formulate and prove his/her position. That is what I have done--not with "babbling" as you suppose, but with credible documentation of events, statements, etc.

Induction also involves having clear evidence and quotes available to support your claim - which you did not provide. What's laughable is that you seem to think that providing any kind of quote - without regard to its relevance - is proof for what you claim. What a joke.

The specifics I have described make it difficult for any rational individual to reach any conclusion other than that the reason "that many Church leaders wanted the ban ended" is because it was precisely what I have characterized it as being. OD-2 alludes to that fact: ". . .to extend [emphasis added] to every worthy member of the Church all the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords"* and "witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld. . . ." And so does President Lee's statement about "justice." And so does Apostle Hugh Brown's repeated efforts to have the ban lifted. And so does the joy exhibited by the Twelve and other General Authorities--as well as members at large--when the revelation was disclosed. *In other words, worthy members had been deprived of "all the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords." That was an injustice.

Since you've been anything but rational in this thread, we can hardly expect you to have any credibility at this point.

By that "reasoning," so was Joseph Smith when he declared--based on the First Vision--that all churches were wrong.

So, you're now claiming to have a revelation or vision about the intent of the leaders of the Church? Better be careful with your analogies. On the other hand, you're simply being consistent in the things your stretch to make your point.

Ah yes, a matter of surpassing importance. I clarified that in an earlier post, which you choose to ignore.

Right. You made an abject fool of yourself with you posts about CFRs, and you think you "clarified" that? What a laugh.

". . .dishonest misrepresentation": Hmmm. . .are you suggesting there is such a thing as "honest misrepresentation"?

I keep forgetting not be subtle with you. I'll keep it simpler from now on.

That's right. Truth to tell, it was lifted because ________________________________________.

You really don't read for comprehension, do you. I gave you one which you promptly overlooked. You're really a waste of time.

I have provided quotes and attributions that are a required part of induction, which you don't understand. 'Tis a pity. (Why should I expect you to understand induction when you don't even know that the "con" side in a debate is obligated to provide credible references?)

You've provided nothing supportive of your claims.

Apostle Brown: flimsy. President Lee: flimsy. Two phrases in OD--2 (as well as its very existence): flimsy. Statements by the Twelve after the revelation was made known: flimsy.

And absolutely nowhere is there any mention of the ban being an error, wrong, or an injustice. Period.

False. I have provided direct quotes, and I have referenced them. You, in lamentable contrast, have provided none (and are so woefully uninformed about debate that you believe you are not required to provide them). Repeated accusations that I am "dishonest"--which is your fumbling attempt to refute my thesis--are not sufficient.

See my remark above about what you've NOT provided. No mention of error, wrongness, or injustice anywhere to be found. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

And to boot, you've made continued misrepresentations about what I've posted. Such is the shallowness of your position.

You just crossed the line; consequently, I won't respond to any posts you direct to me. I will, however, report you for repeated ad hominem attacks. (BTW, I see that one of your threads has been "declined." Makes perfect sense.)

Feel free to report me. If they feel like they need to suspend me and leave the board as a stage for idiots like you, then that's their decision.

Oh, and since you're so adept at quoting things I say out of context, I'll repeat it again. Since your methodology is to draw flimsy conclusions about intent, using quotes that have no direct support for those conclusions, I'll use that same methodology to draw a conclusion about you from your posting here - and in the process, I'll at least be honest enough to admit I don't have a direct quote to support it.

When were you fired from BYU for apostasy? Any clear thinking individual can see from you posting here that this must have happened to you.

You should have quit while you were ahead, the thread ban is wonky. Now you are suspended.

[Jason]

The specifics I have described make it difficult for any rational individual to reach any conclusion other than that the reason "that many Church leaders wanted the ban ended" is because it was precisely what I have characterized it as being.

I also respectfully disagree.

That many Church leaders wanted the ban ended seems beyond dispute. The question is whether they felt it was a mistake. There appears to be no clear-cut documentation supporting your position on that point.

[Jason]

Hi Jason, I have a question about your comment here although not directed at me. I hope that's okay.

Sure. Dan doesn't seem very responsive anyway, though he may have stopped following the thread since the feud between jwhitlock and paulpatter took over.

Do you really believe that the priesthood and temple ordinances are not blessings? Because we hear all the time about the blessings of the temple. So it seems like not being able to be sealed in the temple would be having a blessing witheld. There are also several scriptures that tell what the blessings of the priesthood are. So blessings were witheld according to the things I've been taught.

If you think about it, you'll see that the ordinances themselves are not a blessing. They provide access to blessings, and a sort of assurity that those blessings will be granted. If, as Dan insisted, God doesn't withold blessings from anyone who seeks them (which seems a fair position to take), then not having access to the temple simply means that you don't have the peace of mind and assurity of these blessings that attending the temple might give you, not that you won't receive the blessings.

The pristhood operates in the same way. It is indeed a great blessing to be able to receive preisthood blessings. But having the priesthood does not by itself grant you blessings, to my mind. You can't give yourself a priesthood blessing, after all.

What the priesthood gives is really opportunities for service, and the blessings come from being engaged in service. You can serve others without having the priesthood.

Why were black women of African descent barred from the temple if priesthood is not a prerequisite for women? It seems like the PH ban included them unless there was a seperate temple ban.

Were they? I haven't looked into that question. Perhaps you could find me a refrence?

[divinenature]

If you think about it, you'll see that the ordinances themselves are not a blessing. They provide access to blessings, and a sort of assurity that those blessings will be granted. If, as Dan insisted, God doesn't withold blessings from anyone who seeks them (which seems a fair position to take), then not having access to the temple simply means that you don't have the peace of mind and assurity of these blessings that attending the temple might give you, not that you won't receive the blessings.

There are hundreds of talks and lessons on lds.org that have the exact statement of "the blessing of the temple." Are you disagreeing with that idea? Is peace of mind not a blessing, either?

"The temple is a sacred edifice, a holy place, where essential saving ceremonies and ordinances are performed to prepare us for exaltation. It is important that we gain a sure knowledge that our preparation to enter the holy house and that our participation in these ceremonies and covenants are some of the most significant events we will experience in our mortal lives." Robert D. Hales Oct 2009 Ensign

The "most significant events" of our lives happen in the temple according to RDH! Sounds pretty special to me.

Howard W. Hunter said in the Feb. 1995 Ensign, "What a glorious thing it is for us to have the privilege of going to the temple for our own blessings. Then after going to the temple for our own blessings, what a glorious privilege to do the work for those who have gone on before us. This aspect of temple work is an unselfish work. Yet whenever we do temple work for other people, there is a blessing that comes back to us."

You can find more talks about the blessings of the temple here.

The pristhood operates in the same way. It is indeed a great blessing to be able to receive preisthood blessings. But having the priesthood does not by itself grant you blessings, to my mind. You can't give yourself a priesthood blessing, after all.

What the priesthood gives is really opportunities for service, and the blessings come from being engaged in service. You can serve others without having the priesthood.

I'm sorry you only see the priesthood as a responsibility to serve. The power of the priesthood is an awesome blessing!

Richard G. Scott said in Nov 2008 Ensign about women who do not have the priesthood in their home, "They can identify the needs of the women in your ward who are not blessed with priesthood in the home." They lack a blessing. It follows that all people who were denied the PH in their home prior to 1978 were lacking a blessing.

D&C 84 lists a lot of blessing that come to those who receive the priesthood.

33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

I would also argue that it is considered a blessing to bless your own baby, baptize and confirm your own child, give your own children fathers blessings, heal them in the middle of the night when they have an earache, etc.

Why were black women of African descent barred from the temple if priesthood is not a prerequisite for women? It seems like the PH ban included them unless there was a seperate temple ban.

Were they? I haven't looked into that question. Perhaps you could find me a refrence?

Yes. Black women of African descent were also barred from the temple during the "ban." Jane Elizabeth Manning James, who was a faithful LDS woman close to the JS family, was repeatedly denied temple endowment and sealing blessing by BY. He did allow her to be sealed to JS as a servant, but even that was done by proxy if I understand correctly.

This statement is somewhere on blacklds.org, but I can't que the exact page for some reason: "In 1978, the church abolished a long-standing practice that kept black men from seeking priesthoods and black women from participating in temple ceremonies."

[Jason]

There are hundreds of talks and lessons on lds.org that have the exact statement of "the blessing of the temple." Are you disagreeing with that idea? Is peace of mind not a blessing, either?

Peace of mind may be reckoned a blessing, but again, according to Dan no blessing wasn't ever witheld from those who sought it.

The "most significant events" of our lives happen in the temple according to RDH! Sounds pretty special to me.

Yeah, it sure is, but is it itself a blessing?

I'm sorry you only see the priesthood as a responsibility to serve. The power of the priesthood is an awesome blessing!

Having access to the power of the priesthood is an awesome blessing. You can have access to the preisthood without holding it yourself - ask any woman in the Church.

They lack a blessing. It follows that all people who were denied the PH in their home prior to 1978 were lacking a blessing.

Not according to Dan's argument.

I would also argue that it is considered a blessing to bless your own baby, baptize and confirm your own child, give your own children fathers blessings, heal them in the middle of the night when they have an earache, etc.

Yes - all the instances you mention are service to others. The priesthood allows you specific opportunities that you might not have otherwise, but does that equate with a blessing?

Yes. Black women of African descent were also barred from the temple during the "ban."

Interesting. Why do you think they were barred, since it wasn't an issue of having to hold the priesthood? Or was it?

[divinenature]

Peace of mind may be reckoned a blessing, but again, according to Dan no blessing wasn't ever witheld from those who sought it.

Yeah, it sure is, but is it itself a blessing?

Having access to the power of the priesthood is an awesome blessing. You can have access to the preisthood without holding it yourself - ask any woman in the Church.

Not according to Dan's argument.

Yes - all the instances you mention are service to others. The priesthood allows you specific opportunities that you might not have otherwise, but does that equate with a blessing?

Interesting. Why do you think they were barred, since it wasn't an issue of having to hold the priesthood? Or was it?

I'm not Dan and I was really more interested in your comment and belief. Are you arguing something you don't believe? I am now confused at what you are trying to say. Are you saying that no blessings were ever witheld from those of African descent and in order to support that claim you are trivializing the blessing of the PH and temple?

You left out all the quotes and scriptures that I quoted. Did you not agree with them, not like them, or agree with them?

[Jason]

I'm not Dan and I was really more interested in your comment and belief.

Which was addressed to Dan.

Are you arguing something you don't believe? I am now confused at what you are trying to say. Are you saying that no blessings were ever witheld from those of African descent and in order to support that claim you are trivializing the blessing of the PH and temple?

I am in fact making a rather complicated argument with a devil's advocate component to it, yes.

I think that Dan's statement that God doesn't withold blessings from anyone who earnestly seeks them is essentially true: when one speaks of the blessings that really matter in eternity. For instance no one, I think, has ever been witheld from an eternal marriage despite having lived at a time when they weren't available on Earth.

However, I agree with you that some blessings are witheld from people during this life. These might well be termed trivial blessings when compared to the blessings that are not ultimately witheld.

Dan took the hardline of saying that no blessing that is earnestly sought is ever witheld, in support of his argument that the Church was wrong and God did not authorize the ban. As you are arguing, this simply isn't the case. God will in fact sometimes withold desired blessings during this life.

I do feel that while not having the preisthood or the ability to attend the temple is indeed a hardship that those who had these things witheld during life will not, ultimately, be handicapped by that fact.

You left out all the quotes and scriptures that I quoted. Did you not agree with them, not like them, or agree with them?

I commonly do not quote entire posts of others. I felt I could make my counter points without re-quoting them.

[divinenature]

Which was addressed to Dan.

Which I acknowledged and asked for clarification of your beliefs. That is why I thought I was getting your beliefs and was confused to see all the Dan stuff amongst your answer.

think that Dan's statement that God doesn't withold blessings from anyone who earnestly seeks them is essentially true: when one speaks of the blessings that really matter in eternity. For instance no one, I think, has ever been witheld from an eternal marriage despite having lived at a time when they weren't available on Earth.

However, I agree with you that some blessings are witheld from people during this life. These might well be termed trivial blessings when compared to the blessings that are not ultimately witheld.

Dan took the hardline of saying that no blessing that is earnestly sought is ever witheld, in support of his argument that the Church was wrong and God did not authorize the ban. As you are arguing, this simply isn't the case. God will in fact sometimes withold desired blessings during this life.

I do feel that while not having the preisthood or the ability to attend the temple is indeed a hardship that those who had these things witheld during life will not, ultimately, be handicapped by that fact.

Thank you for clarifying.

I think we agree a lot more than we disagree, which is why I have a hard time understanding when people attempt to trivialize things for the sake of argument.

I agree that eternal marriage will not be witheld from anyone regardless of when they lived. I disagree that God ever witholds spritual blessings from those who earnestly seek them even in this life.

I believe the power of God is available to all humankind. It is the "authority" or temporal manifestation of the priesthood which is often kept from people by other men. I believe we are the authors of any ban that has been or is currently in existance.

I'm grateful that there are leaders in the church who received revelation ending a traditional ban. Maybe someday they will receive one ending the current ban.

Or, like you hinted at with your question about black women being barred from the temple, maybe women aren't as banned from the PH as we think they are. Very mysterious!

[DanGB]

Dan took the hardline of saying that no blessing that is earnestly sought is ever witheld, in support of his argument that the Church was wrong and God did not authorize the ban. As you are arguing, this simply isn't the case. God will in fact sometimes withold desired blessings during this life.

Well let me take a crack of Dan's thoughts here. Hearsey as it might be!

If hard-line means hard facts, Jason might be right.

JS, through our Heavenly Father, was chosen to restore the "fullness of the gospel" which he did. In that restoration, and in the eyes of God, Joseph followed our Church doctrine and gave the priesthood to worthy men including black men. There were, according to our Church doctrine, no ban against anyone or any class of those who wanted to live up to the standards and doctrine of our Church that JS restored.

Unless those critical of my opinions will point to the doctrine that changed what God restored to JS, and what JS carried out, I am at a loss as to what I am taking a hard line on here. I am taking what we are taught : what our doctrine says. If someone here will point to the docrine that banned our African American brothers from what JS and the restored gospel provided, I will abandone this suppsed "hard line".

Or, since the restoration of the gospel's fullness, can anyone point to where God banned any class or group of people from what He offered.

If being honest and factual makes one a hardliner, so be it!

[paulpatter]

Well let me take a crack of Dan's thoughts here. Hearsey as it might be!

If hard-line means hard facts, Jason might be right.

JS, through our Heavenly Father, was chosen to restore the "fullness of the gospel" which he did. In that restoration, and in the eyes of God, Joseph followed our Church doctrine and gave the priesthood to worthy men including black men. There were, according to our Church doctrine, no ban against anyone or any class of those who wanted to live up to the standards and doctrine of our Church that JS restored.

Unless those critical of my opinions will point to the doctrine that changed what God restored to JS, and what JS carried out, I am at a loss as to what I am taking a hard line on here. I am taking what we are taught : what our doctrine says. If someone here will point to the docrine that banned our African American brothers from what JS and the restored gospel provided, I will abandone this suppsed "hard line".

Or, since the restoration of the gospel's fullness, can anyone point to where God banned any class or group of people from what He offered.

If being honest and factual makes one a hardliner, so be it!

Excellent, well-articulated points.

I cannot understand how Brigham Young could justify his policy of withholding the priesthood from worthy black men. According to Edward L. Kimball, "The first known direct statement by a Church President that blacks were denied the priesthood came from Brigham Young in February 1849. . . . Wilford Woodruff reported that. . .Young, speaking to the Utah territorial legislature, took personal responsibility for articulating the restriction: 'Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it'" ("Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood," BYU Studies, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008, page 15).

Note the words "took personal responsibility." BY did that in spite of the following:

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel [emphasis added] to every creature. . .

(Mark 16:15).

And this gospel [emphasis added] of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14).

Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations. . . (D&C 133).

And this gospel [emphasis added] shall be preached unto every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people

(D&C 133:37).

I have underlined "gospel" because according to the Church's online Gospel Library (under the heading of "Gospel Topics"): "In its fulness, the gospel includes all [emphasis added] the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom."

Some may claim that President Young received a revelation. They may also point out that not all revelations were recorded. I suppose those are possibilities regarding President Young's policy, but--as far as I know--we have nothing to substantiate that it was a revelation. It was a policy that, by some perverse twist of fate, became--for some of our prophets--a doctrine.

In my opinion, the restriction was an injustice for several reasons, but principally because it further stigmatized a persecuted, exploited people and hindered missionary work virtually worldwide.

[divinenature]

And for some reason it was expected that ALL races would join in worship in the Nauvoo temple. How could there be a ban on PH or temple if every color was going to worship in the Nauvoo temple when it was done?

From blacklds.org:

1840: People of Every Color Anticipated to Worship in the Nauvoo Temple

[DanGB]

And for some reason it was expected that ALL races would join in worship in the Nauvoo temple. How could there be a ban on PH or temple if every color was going to worship in the Nauvoo temple when it was done?

From blacklds.org:

1840: People of Every Color Anticipated to Worship in the Nauvoo Temple

[Jason]

Unless those critical of my opinions will point to the doctrine that changed what God restored to JS, and what JS carried out, I am at a loss as to what I am taking a hard line on here. I am taking what we are taught : what our doctrine says. If someone here will point to the docrine that banned our African American brothers from what JS and the restored gospel provided, I will abandone this suppsed "hard line".

It's not much of a mystery what I was referring to. I said in my post that the hard line position you were taking was that "no blessing that is earnestly sought is ever witheld." It's a hardline position because it deals in absolutes - "NO blessing," "EVER witheld."

As others pointed out, it's not a tenable position without some qualification. It's obvious that God does indeed withold some earnestly sought blessings during this lifetime. The blind man who prays for sight, for instance, or the quadroplegic who prays to walk again. Those blessings are unlikely to be received until the resurrection.

These blessings are denied not because the person asking lacks faith or is unworthy (though those may be reasons in some cases), but because this life is a time of trials, and some require these specific trials for their progression. Others require the opportunity of service that disabled members give them.

The question of whether the preisthood ban was an error is really a question about how much you trust our leadership and whether there can be valid reasons for seemingly bad thing to happen to good people.

If you don't believe that there was any valid purpose in witholding the priesthood, do you believe there is no valid purpose in other terrible events that occur in life - loosing one's sight, the loss of a limb or the use of one's legs, the death of a child, etc.?

If you believe Brigham Young lead the Church astray in insisting on the priesthood ban, do you feel that Church leaders have lead us astray in other important matters as well?

[Lightbearer]

So in other words everyone just ignores my post (# 121) and the quote from the Standard Works (Abraham 1:21-26) and instead piles on Brigham Young with "quote mining" from old newspaper reports of various opinions in Church History. Does anyone not understand that the revelations of the restoration were a gradual process and that our understanding was and is line upon line. I will defend Brigham if no one else will. I say that God has never "apologized" for the curse and neither should the church, it was not a mistake and it was not a "racist opinion" of BY that "led the church astray" and I defy anyone on earth or in hell to prove that it was a mistake. They cannot because they do not know the mind of God. It is true that it was a difficult doctrine to understand, It is also true we did not and still do not understand it, which is probably the reason it was not fully implemented until after Joseph's death, (much like plural marriage was revealed in 1830's but was not written or fully lived until after Joseph's death. I see many parallels in these two things, and then in 1978 the curse was finally lifted. But it was not lifted until God gave a revelation to do so. We are not given the whys and wherefores we are just given the commands. I am tired of the Anti-Mormons trying to paint history in the worse possible light, they try to say they can look into BY's heart and mind and they cannot. I did not like the priesthood ban either, I found it awkward to explain to my black friends, and yet the curse came from God and the lifting of the curse also came from God. The preaching of the Gospel to the gentiles did not come until a revelation to Peter, although the Church had more of a problem then with that doctrine than it did in 1978. Brigham Young was just as much a prophet as Joseph Smith or Spencer W. Kimball was and I do not believe in lifting my heel against the Lord's anointed (living or dead) is justifiable for the sake of "political expediency" or "political correctness." Get over it, it was changed 31 years ago. The only purpose to dredge it up today is to give the enemies of the Church ammunition to try to get the Saints to doubt the counsel of modern prophets. (It they were wrong in BY's day why not today?) That is their purpose, I know who and what you are... and I will do everything in my power to disprove you and defeat you. As the Lord liveth and I live, truth will prevail!