I Know Not, Save The Lord Commanded Me.

[Deborah]

He was troubled by it, and asked about it. What if he hadn't done that, as is being suggested that we not do?

No one is suggesting that and in fact prophets before Pres. Kimball asked about it, in particular Pres. McKay. It wasn't until Pres. Kimball asked that an answer was given to lift the ban. You have to understand this was such and issue in the sixties that the leaders of the church had to be concerned. The fact that the answer didn't come in the positive until 1978 indicates to me that there was a reason for waiting. I personally think it had a lot to do with the Africans who discovered the BOM and organized a church based on that and then contacted the church and kept asking when they could get missionaries and get baptized. Perhaps the Lord was waiting for such a thing, to have a people so prepared and waiting that it could no longer be withheld.

[Flyonthewall]

Ah, good. I am glad someone brought up that it was addressed BEFORE Pres. Kimball. This wasn't something Pres. Kimball just thought he would address out of the blue...Other prophets before addressed it and were told 'no' or 'not yet'. I would think it was an on-going concern that finally got the Lord's 'OK'.

[JDave]

It says more than that. It ways that the "questioning" itself was given to them by the Holy Ghost.

It says less than that. It says they read the scripture and they marveled, for it was given unto them of the spirit. What was given to them of the spirit? Verse 15 says that it was the JST version of John 5:29, which was "given unto us as follows".

Not necessarily. The discussion arose when I was asked what would have happened if Spencer W. Kimball had not inquired at that time regarding the lifting of the priesthood ban? ... The answer is that if it had been the will of the Lord to lift the ban sooner, the prophet would have been inspired to question sooner; or a commandment would have been given sooner without the need for such a questioning. God works in many different ways to reveal His will to His servants.

As has been pointed out, previous questioning had already occurred by other prophets. That was part of why I could not understand your statement.

The will of the Lord does not always supercede our wills. Man is allowed to be stubborn to a large degree, and while it does not frustrate the work of God I believe that God's will would be more fully realized if we used our agency to allow it. I don't see how we can judge from our vantage point what portion of events happened because God's inexorable will declared that nothing else could happen and what portion of events happened because mankind was finally willing to work within the will of God.

[zerinus]

It says less than that. It says they read the scripture and they marveled, for it was given unto them of the spirit. What was given to them of the spirit? Verse 15 says that it was the JST version of John 5:29, which was "given unto us as follows".

No. It was the "marvelling" that was "given to them" of the Spirit. Another relevant scripture is as follows:

D&C 50:

29 And if ye are purified and cleansed from all sin, ye shall ask whatsoever you will in the name of Jesus and it shall be done.

30 But know this, it shall be given you what you shall ask; and as ye are appointed to the head, the spirits shall be subject unto you.

As has been pointed out, previous questioning had already occurred by other prophets. That was part of why I could not understand your statement.

Not sure what you were referring to. Spencer W. Kimball felt anxious that the ban should be lifted, therefore he supplicated the Lord over the issue; and the answer was given that justified his anxiety at that time. That anxiety and the answer given implies that he was prompted of the Lord to ask because the right time had come.

The will of the Lord does not always supercede our wills. Man is allowed to be stubborn to a large degree, and while it does not frustrate the work of God I believe that God's will would be more fully realized if we used our agency to allow it. I don't see how we can judge from our vantage point what portion of events happened because God's inexorable will declared that nothing else could happen and what portion of events happened because mankind was finally willing to work within the will of God.

Not sure what you are talking about here. If you are suggesting that previous prophets had therefore neglected something, I disagree.

[mfbukowski]

Recent topics (priesthood ban, love/anger of God, ark steadying, etc.) have got me to thinking about that scripture in Moses where the angel appears to Adam:

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

. (Moses 5:6)

Is the principle of accepting the word of the Lord, without complete knowledge of His purposes, becoming outmoded to some?

I suspect that if the Prophet were to make an announcement of a new revelation (whatever it might entail) there would be a group (small or large, I don't know) who would want to have all the details of the purpose before they would be ready to live that principle.

Have we lost the ability to just say "I know not save the Lord commanded me?"

Part of the problem, in my view, is that so many of us want to be "wise" and to just accept on faith alone would not be considered wise by the learned. Let's see, how did Isaiah say that:

"...for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." Isaiah 29:14

How does the principle of acting on faith affect your life? MW

Well I think if the Lord appeared to me and told me to do something- dude, I am gonna do it.

Unfortunately, it is not that simple all the time. Prophets have been known to be mistaken. If I get my own testimony of the situation, that's different. But that's not likely to happen unless I have a clear understanding of the principle.

I don't think we should obey "blindly"- I think we need to have our own testimony of the principle, but of course Alma 32 also applies. We need to try living the principle sometimes to see if it bears fruit in our lives.

[JDave]

No. It was the "marvelling" that was "given to them" of the Spirit.

I think it fairly straight-forward to state that when Joseph Smith says that when John 5:29 was "given unto us as follows" that it was given to them via the spirit. We believe the JST to be inspired, to be given by the spirit. The context of the whole passage leans, IMHO, towards an interpretation that they were marveling at the inspired differences in John 5:29, for they had been given to them of the spirit. But I can see how you might read it otherwise.

Not sure what you were referring to. Spencer W. Kimball felt anxious that the ban should be lifted, therefore he supplicated the Lord over the issue; and the answer was given that justified his anxiety at that time. That anxiety and the answer given implies that he was prompted of the Lord to ask because the right time had come.

Does that mean that President David O. McKay was not justified in his anxiety over the ban? Was President McKay not prompted in asking because it wasn't the right time, but he went ahead and asked anyway?

Not sure what you are talking about here. If you are suggesting that previous prophets had therefore neglected something, I disagree.

Obviously President McKay didn't neglect the issue. Are you suggesting that prophets never neglect anything? My point was that God cannot abrogate our free will. I don't see life as a meticulously orchestrated series of events where God prompts each of us to do just the right thing at the right time to bring about His will. We are supposed to be anxiously engaged in a good cause of our own free will, not commanded in all things. I think President McKay was anxious of his own free will and I think that President Kimball was anxious of his own free will.

I would venture to guess that you do not attribute every bad choice to "the devil made me do it". However it seems like you are arguing the converse, that every good choice that brings about God's will was caused by God, that we are somehow unable to assist God in His work without being pushed or prompted into it.

Edited February 22, 2012 by JDave

[zerinus]

I think it fairly straight-forward to state that when Joseph Smith says that when John 5:29 was "given unto us as follows" that it was given to them via the spirit. We believe the JST to be inspired, to be given by the spirit. The context of the whole passage leans, IMHO, towards an interpretation that they were marveling at the inspired differences in John 5:29, for they had been given to them of the spirit. But I can see how you might read it otherwise.

Sorry Dave, but I don't see it that way. I think that verse 15 and verse 18 of D&C 76 are talking about two different things. The "marvelling" was not about the differences between the two different translations of John 5:29. It was about the doctrine that they (both) taught. Both translations teach the same doctrine. The differences betwen them do not significantly alter the doctrines that they teach. These are the two different versions combined, with the differences highlighted:

John 5:

29 And shall come forth; they that who have done good, unto in the resurrection of life the just; and they that who have done evil, unto in the resurrection of damnation the unjust.

As you can see, the changes do not significantly alter the doctrine. The "marvelling" was over the doctrine, i.e. "that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body, the term 'Heaven,' as intended for the Saints' eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one." The vision was given to explain that wondering or "marvelling:" i.e. how there could be many kingdoms, while John 5:29 seems to present a black-and-white picture of the events. D&C 76:18 says that that "marvelling" itself was "given unto" them "of the Spirit". If you still don't see it that way, then we just have to agree to disagree.

Does that mean that President David O. McKay was not justified in his anxiety over the ban? Was President McKay not prompted in asking because it wasn't the right time, but he went ahead and asked anyway?

Obviously President McKay didn't neglect the issue. Are you suggesting that prophets never neglect anything? My point was that God cannot abrogate our free will. I don't see life as a meticulously orchestrated series of events where God prompts each of us to do just the right thing at the right time to bring about His will. We are supposed to be anxiously engaged in a good cause of our own free will, not commanded in all things. I think President McKay was anxious of his own free will and I think that President Kimball was anxious of his own free will.

I would venture to guess that you do not attribute every bad choice to "the devil made me do it". However it seems like you are arguing the converse, that every good choice that brings about God's will was caused by God, that we are somehow unable to assist God in His work without being pushed or prompted into it.

I am not really sure what you are trying to say here. If you would cut out the verbiage and get to the point, I may be able to answer.

Edited February 22, 2012 by zerinus

[JDave]

Sorry Dave, but I don't see it that way.

I noticed. That's fine.

I am not really sure what you are trying to say here. If you would cut out the verbiage and get to the point, I may be able to answer.

You claimed that President Kimball's anxiety and questioning of the priesthood ban was indicative of God influencing him to be anxious and question the ban. It isn't indicative of anything other than President Kimball's feelings on the matter.

[zerinus]

You claimed that President Kimball's anxiety and questioning of the priesthood ban was indicative of God influencing him to be anxious and question the ban. It isn't indicative of anything other than President Kimball's feelings on the matter.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You are entitled to your views as I am to mine.

[JDave]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You are entitled to your views as I am to mine.

What is your view on the reason why President McKay was anxious about and questioned the priesthood ban?