Downside to reflection and foregiveness?

[divinenature]

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!

I'm sorry you felt your comment was ignored.

Let me explain how some of your brothers and sisters in the church interpret this.

IF you choose to hold on to the belief that ALL the descendants of HAM are cursed in regards to the priesthood than you must also believe that ALL the family of Ephraim and Manassah were cursed from the PH until 1978. It is a Biblical reality that Ephraim and Manassah had an Egyptian mother (her dad was a pagan priest).

So, if you are going to use that particular scripture to back up the curse doctrine than you must apply it equally across the board.

Is that what you believe? Everyone with a drop of Ham blood was cursed from the PH until 1978?

Further, I believe that BY, et al were working with "less light and knowledge" up to the 1970's.

BRM said,

[paulpatter]

I'm sorry you felt your comment was ignored.

Let me explain how some of your brothers and sisters in the church interpret this.

IF you choose to hold on to the belief that ALL the descendants of HAM are cursed in regards to the priesthood than you must also believe that ALL the family of Ephraim and Manassah were cursed from the PH until 1978. It is a Biblical reality that Ephraim and Manassah had an Egyptian mother (her dad was a pagan priest).

So, if you are going to use that particular scripture to back up the curse doctrine than you must apply it equally across the board.

Is that what you believe? Everyone with a drop of Ham blood was cursed from the PH until 1978?

Further, I believe that BY, et al were working with "less light and knowledge" up to the 1970's.

BRM said,

[Lightbearer]

I'm sorry you felt your comment was ignored.

Let me explain how some of your brothers and sisters in the church interpret this.

IF you choose to hold on to the belief that ALL the descendants of HAM are cursed in regards to the priesthood than you must also believe that ALL the family of Ephraim and Manassah were cursed from the PH until 1978. It is a Biblical reality that Ephraim and Manassah had an Egyptian mother (her dad was a pagan priest).

So, if you are going to use that particular scripture to back up the curse doctrine than you must apply it equally across the board.

Is that what you believe? Everyone with a drop of Ham blood was cursed from the PH until 1978?

Further, I believe that BY, et al were working with "less light and knowledge" up to the 1970's.

BRM said,

[DanGB]

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?

Jason, now you're baiting! Sorry won't bite!

Yes I believe that BY was in error on this matter. Have no regrets saying that. My bishop knows how I conclude on this, as does my SP. No problem for either one of them. Only seems to be a problem for you. Deal with it! And with the facts of our history! I have.

[paulpatter]

. . . it was not a "racist opinion" of BY that "led the church astray" . . . .

I need to say this carefully. It is not my belief that racism was a factor in the policy adopted by Brigham Young. I can understand, however, why some people believe it was. It would be unwise to post BY's statements about the "African race" here--I refuse to do that--but for those who are interested, see Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, pages 290-291 and 336.

[paulpatter]

. . . it [the ban] was not a mistake. . . .

I'm not setting a snare here; I would really like to know: Do you believe presidents of the Church are infallible?

[paulpatter]

. . . When did God take this right to His blessing away [priesthood for blacks]? . . . The truth is, we have no reason to believe He ever did.

I think you are correct. Michael R. Ash, in "What is 'Official' LDS Doctrine?" (FAIR), writes: "It is likely that the Lord has allowed (and will continue to allow) his servants to make mistakes--it's all part of progression and the growing process. We are not forced to accept teachings with which we disagree. We're supposed to receive confirmation from the spirit if what is taught is the doctrine of God, and of course we're the one who put ourselves in jeopardy if we fail to accept things that will bless us."

[Jason]

I think you are correct. Michael R. Ash, in "What is 'Official' LDS Doctrine?" (FAIR), writes: "It is likely that the Lord has allowed (and will continue to allow) his servants to make mistakes--it's all part of progression and the growing process. We are not forced to accept teachings with which we disagree. We're supposed to receive confirmation from the spirit if what is taught is the doctrine of God, and of course we're the one who put ourselves in jeopardy if we fail to accept things that will bless us."

Here's a hypothetical for you then, paulpatter.

Assume that you lived during the ban, prayed about it, and did not receive a confirmation that it was from God.

Since you believed the ban to be in error, you then odrained a man of afrcian ancestry to the priesthood.

You have now violated official Church policy.

If Church leadership excommunicates you for this ordination, who is acting more correctly - you or they?

[Lightbearer]

I'm not setting a snare here; I would really like to know: Do you believe presidents of the Church are infallible?

Oh course they are not infallible, and neither are you or I, neither are the critics of the Church that stir up the controversy 30 years after it was settled. But I do believe that God directs this Church and that it did not take all the way to 1978 for God to "correct an error" made by BY or any other prophet, or He would have said so in the OD-2. He does not and He has not. Unless the current prophet comes out and says it was all a big mistake and Brigham Young and all the prophets after him to Spencer W. Kimball were mistaken or bigoted or whatever... then I do not accept the idea. I do not believe God expects us to second guess His prophets, even though they are not infallible, God is infallible and He is in charge of this Church and can direct it as He sees fit. The politically correct rewriting of history does not change the fact that there was a curse and it was lifted and we should accept it and rejoice that all may have the all the blessings and responsibilities of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[divinenature]

So as not to be accused of "quote mining" I am copying this entire statement made within a talk of GBH. There are several key elements to this quote that I think are very, very relevant. I thank whoever it was who brought this quote to my attention on another thread. [emphisis added]

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

How can any man arrogantly assume he is eligible for the PH over someone of a different skin color? Why is that considered arrogant if that is they way God wanted it?

No man who makes disparaging remarks about someone of a different race can be considered a true disciple of Christ! Is this only true now or has this always been true since the beginning of Christianity?

Any in the priesthood holding these views are called to repentance.

He also appears to be equating the attitudes of pre-1978 practices with racial strife not a God-given mandate.

[paulpatter]

Here's a hypothetical for you then, paulpatter.

Assume that you lived during the ban, prayed about it, and did not receive a confirmation that it was from God.

Since you believed the ban to be in error, you then odrained a man of afrcian ancestry to the priesthood.

You have now violated official Church policy.

If Church leadership excommunicates you for this ordination, who is acting more correctly - you or they?

Inasmuch as we cannot receive revelation for the whole Church, "they" would be acting more correctly. That does not mean, however, that I am obligated to agree with the policy. BTW, there is nothing to indicate that the ban was the result of a revelation; it was simply a policy adopted by Brigham Young. Evidence for that is found in the disparate--and desperate--explanations given for the ban. Let's see, it was because of the Cain/Abel episode; no, it was because certain souls were neutral in the pre-existence; no, it was because Satan needed representation on earth; no, it was because the time was not right (meanwhile, missionary work in dozens of countries was set back by generations, and the Church was perceived as bigoted); no, it was because. . . .