Withholding the priesthood from blacks

[Chronos]

Atticus, you get a nice break. I won't let you complain to us that we aren't nice then exhibit the same behavior.

wenglund, knock it off and if there is a problem with someone's postings, please report it.

~Chronos

[Jaybear]

And, don't you think it more than a little hypocritical to remark on my supposed lack of niceness for thinking you may be a false lawyer after you denegrate my faith by calling Joseph Smith a false prophet?

"Supposed?"

Lets see, you repeatedly called him a liar, which is against the board rules for nonmembers. You make snarky comments: "Did you sleep through law school?, Were you not able to afford Black's Law Dictionary? "...should strike confidence in the heart of your supposed clients."

All this because he dared look to the dictionary to support his opinion that the Priesthood ban was "doctrine" not "policy."

If you believe the ban originated from God, I don't understand why does it matter so much to you whether its characterized as "policy" or "doctrine"? I was under the impression that some apologists characterized it as policy, as a means of distancing the ban from God. Can you explain why its so important to you.

And so that I better understand where you are comming from, are these policy or doctrine, and which originate from God or man:

1. Ban on women holding priesthood.

2. Tying temple recommend to WOW.

3. Changes made to the temple ceremony

4. suspension of the earthly practice of plural marriage.

5. Requiring a sustaining vote for Monson as your prophet.

Thanks, in advance.

[Chronos]

Jaybear, the situation between wenglund and AtticusFitch has been addressed. It was handled in the manner it was due to other factors, not just solely on this one thread. If you have questions about other topics, please open a new thread.

~Chronos

[Jaybear]

If you have questions about other topics, please open a new thread.

~Chronos

????? I am not trying to derail the thread. Nor open a new discussion.

The OP ask specifically if the Priesthood ban was doctrine? That is the express topic of this thread.

Wade insists it was policy not doctrine. I genuinely don't understand the distinction, and I am not alone. So I asked the questions in good faith to see if Wade could articulate some intellectual consistency in this distinction, as applied to other practices that seem to me to fall within the same cracks.

You are correct though, pointing out Wade's misconduct in repeatedly calling another poster was unnecessary, as you had already dealt with Wade's misconduct, when you told him to knock it off. My apologies.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

To give you an outside example of the difference. We are required by doctrine to meet on the Sabbath. Policy is that we, in my Ward, to meet from 11 AM to 2 PM. As we have 3 Wards meeting in the same building we rotate the schedule to everyone an equal changes at a desired schedule. That was a change in Policy. I easily remember when Priesthood was early morning, then Sunday School in mid morning, then Sacrament Meeting in the Evening.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

To give you an outside example of the difference. We are required by doctrine to meet on the Sabbath. Policy is that we, in my Ward, to meet from 11 AM to 2 PM. As we have 3 Wards meeting in the same building we rotate the schedule to everyone an equal changes at a desired schedule. That was a change in Policy. I easily remember when Priesthood was early morning, then Sunday School in mid morning, then Sacrament Meeting in the Evening.

That example would lead me to conclude that policy is set at the local level and can change without divine intervention. That does not support Wade insistence that the ban was policy.

On this line of thought, is the position that the Sabbath is on Sunday, not the 7th day...Saturday, policy or doctrine?

[Hestia]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Closed due to multiple complaints

Thank you,

Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board Staff