The Next Step? "We Don'T Know Why... But It Was Wrong"

[Log]

No

No. What I said is that the First Presidency has rejected the prior "instructions" rationalizing the ban (curse of cain, etc) - which is true.

Then you were not speaking of divine instructions, whereas I was speaking explicitly of them. The difference between "divine instructions" and "rationalizations" is rather stark, and is not a mistake innocently made.

I never said the First Presidency stated that the ban was not divinely instituted. They have not .... yet. Rather, they have taken a "we don't know" position.

The First Presidency said they "don't know" whether the priesthood ban was divinely instituted? I was unaware they even addressed that issue.

And in light of the fact that prior official statements said the ban was inspired, I find their present silence on the subject to be a very welcome progress.

I can well believe you do, for obvious reasons.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Log

[Buckeye]

Then you were not speaking of divine instructions, whereas I was speaking explicitly of them. The difference between "divine instructions" and "rationalizations" is rather stark, and is not a mistake innocently made.

The First Presidency said they "don't know" whether the priesthood ban was divinely instituted? I was unaware they even addressed that issue.

...

It seems we're speaking past each other. You made the first reference to "divine instructions" as follows: "Simply put, an apology for following divine instructions is an admission that the instructions were not divine." I assumed you meant that the prior teachings as to curse of cain, premortal valiancy, etc - which were taught by church leaders as the revealed word of God - were "divine instructions". I said they were not, as evidenced by the press release's rejection of such teachings. I stand by my statement and think it is very safe ground to reject such "instructions". Please let me know whether you think those specific teachings were inspired. If not, we're in agreement.

Perhaps you only meant that the ban itself was a "divine instruction" without reference to any justification. If so, then as I admitted above, the First Presidency has not explicity rejected the notion that the ban is divine, but they also have not explicity approved of such notion. The press release says: "... It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church" In other words, the First Presidency takes no position on whether the ban was divine or not. This is very important, considering that prior statements from the church did claim the ban was inspired.

You evidently believe the ban was inspired. I don't. The First Presidency's most recent statement allows for both our views. I have not condemn you or claimed that you are on "sandy ground." I'd appreciate the same coutesy in return. This is an admittedly hard issue. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Buckeye

[Senator]

It seems we're speaking past each other. You made the first reference to "divine instructions" as follows: "Simply put, an apology for following divine instructions is an admission that the instructions were not divine." I assumed you meant that the prior teachings as to curse of cain, premortal valiancy, etc - which were taught by church leaders as the revealed word of God - were "divine instructions". I said they were not, as evidenced by the press release's rejection of such teachings. I stand by my statement and think it is very safe ground to reject such "instructions". Please let me know whether you think those specific teachings were inspired. If not, we're in agreement.

Perhaps you only meant that the ban itself was a "divine instruction" without reference to any justification. If so, then as I admitted above, the First Presidency has not explicity rejected the notion that the ban is divine, but they also have not explicity approved of such notion. The press release says: "... It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church" In other words, the First Presidency takes no position on whether the ban was divine or not. This is very important, considering that prior statements from the church did claim the ban was inspired.

You evidently believe the ban was inspired. I don't. The First Presidency's most recent statement allows for both our views. I have not condemn you or claimed that you are on "sandy ground." I'd appreciate the same coutesy in return. This is an admittedly hard issue. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Well done Buckeye!

You've expressed you point both succinctly and civily. It is a very valid point

[Log]

It seems we're speaking past each other. You made the first reference to "divine instructions" as follows: "Simply put, an apology for following divine instructions is an admission that the instructions were not divine." I assumed you meant that the prior teachings as to curse of cain, premortal valiancy, etc - which were taught by church leaders as the revealed word of God - were "divine instructions". I said they were not, as evidenced by the press release's rejection of such teachings. I stand by my statement and think it is very safe ground to reject such "instructions". Please let me know whether you think those specific teachings were inspired. If not, we're in agreement.

The word "instructions" does not mean "rationalizations." How you came to imagine "rationalizations" meant "instructions" is interesting - one does not "follow" "rationalizations" whereas one does "follow" "instructions." Why my opinion of any particular "rationalization" for the "instructions" that were given and carried out has any relevance, the world may never know.

Perhaps you only meant that the ban itself was a "divine instruction" without reference to any justification. If so, then as I admitted above, the First Presidency has not explicity rejected the notion that the ban is divine, but they also have not explicity approved of such notion. The press release says: "... It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church" In other words, the First Presidency takes no position on whether the ban was divine or not. This is very important, considering that prior statements from the church did claim the ban was inspired.

It simply means that there is no known record of a revelation or directive instituting the ban. That the First Presidency does not address the divinity of the ban in a newsroom blurb is not evidence that the First Presidency takes no position on the divinity of the ban, especially in light of prior statements from the church that did claim the ban was divinely inspired. In other words, the default position is that the ban was divinely instituted, unless specifically told otherwise by the First Presidency - or God. However, I can find references where trustworthy, faithful individuals received revelation for themselves that the ban was divinely inspired.

You evidently believe the ban was inspired. I don't.

I know.

The First Presidency's most recent statement allows for both our views.

I agree that, devoid of its historical context, the First Presidency's most recent statement allows for both our views, but not otherwise.

I have not condemn you or claimed that you are on "sandy ground." I'd appreciate the same coutesy in return. This is an admittedly hard issue. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

I have not condemned you. If, however, you find your skin is thin enough to be abraded by my contrasting your estimation of the soundness of your position ("on safe ground") with its weakness within the historical context this hard issue occurs in ("on sandy ground"), then perhaps you had not ought to make such claims of relative strength.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Log

[zerinus]

I see the point you are making, and i guess it's simply a different point than I was making. For me "we used to know" is somewhat irrelevant since the church can change/refute whatever. My point is that "we don't know" implies something.

"We don't know" without any further clarification means that either of the following could be true:

1) The ban was inspired by God.

2) The ban was not inspried by God.

If #1 and the ban was inspried by God, then God used racial discrimination in his priesthood deliniation and temple ordinance access for Black members during the time of the ban. Period.

Wrong. See my previous post. We may not know all the reasons why God does things. It is highly presumptuous of us to sit in judgement on God's actions, based on our limited knowledge, and try to tell God what is right and what is wrong. Whatever God does is right, even if it appears to be discriminatory to us. Assuming that the ban had been commanded of God, it would not have been "discriminatory" from God's perspective, but there would have been reasons for it that would have made it right from God's point of view, even though from our point of view it appears to have been discriminatory.

[zerinus]

I can guarantee you that if there actually was a revelation instituting the ban, that somebody in the church hierarchy would have preserved a record of it and made sure it didn't get destroyed. When has evidence of any important revelation in church history ever been lost? Yet we know an awful lot about the reasoning behind the ban, based on what early LDS leaders said over the pulpit. And that reasoning isn't pretty, and has been repudiated. So what more do we need to declare that the policy was a mistake?

Not all revelations that prophets receive are written down. In fact, most revelations that they receive are not written down.

[Zeta-Flux]

CFR. He claimed to be instituting it under his authority as President of the Church, even if no other Prophet had ever said or done so before. I don't recall any reference stating it was based on a revelation. Would you provide that quote where that is made clear?

This is the one I'm familiar with, "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane 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. The Negro cannot hold one particle of Government But the day will Come when all the seed of Cane will be Redeemed & have all the Blessings we have now & a great deal more. But the seed of Abel will be ahead of the seed of Cane to all Eternity."

I believe you answered your own call for reference. Is not claiming, as a prophet, in the name of Jesus Christ, the truth of something the very essence of revelation?

Just as an aside: I find the sentence about "have all the Blessings we have now & a great deal more" a wonderful promise.

[David T]

I believe you answered your own call for reference. Is not claiming, as a prophet, in the name of Jesus Christ, the truth of something the very essence of revelation?

So you have nothing where Brigham actually claims to have received a revelation on the matter?

There's a difference between claiming one's authorization to make a pronouncement, and claiming God directly gave him the information to go on.

Prophets have the authority to make policies, and define Church doctrine. They're authorized, also, to be mistaken. We don't believe in the dogma of Ex Cathedra Infalliblity.

It wouldn't be the first time a Prophet or Apostle made a bold declaration "In the name of Jesus Christ" that didn't actually pan out.

And yet, I still feel I can sustain them as being the Lord's Authorized Leaders.

Edited March 21, 2012 by David T

[BCSpace]

Not all revelations that prophets receive are written down. In fact, most revelations that they receive are not written down.

And many of them get published as doctrine anyway in some manual or other without the need for a "thus saith the Lord".

[zerinus]

And many of them get published as doctrine anyway in some manual or other without the need for a "thus saith the Lord".

Yes, but those "revelations" as a rule do not introduce new doctrine into the Church. They are revelations that guide Church members how to live their lives more in harmony with the will of God. They also receive revelations that are never written down. When a General Authority goes to organize a stake, that is done by revelation. But I am not aware that it is written down.

[Zeta-Flux]

So you have nothing where Brigham actually claims to have received a revelation on the matter?

There's a difference between claiming one's authorization to make a pronouncement, and claiming God directly gave him the information to go on.

Did not Brigham claim God directly gave him that information? I read his pronouncement as a declaration of revelation. I suppose you and others can rationally read it otherwise. I hope you can agree, however, that my reading is also rational.

Prophets have the authority to make policies, and define Church doctrine. They're authorized, also, to be mistaken. We don't believe in the dogma of Ex Cathedra Infalliblity.

It wouldn't be the first time a Prophet or Apostle made a bold declaration "In the name of Jesus Christ" that didn't actually pan out.

And yet, I still feel I can sustain them as being the Lord's Authorized Leaders.

I don't see it as an issue of infallibility. I agree with you that prophets are not infallible. I think that they act similarly to what I do when I give a blessing. I seek to say what I truly believe the Lord wills. I don't think I'm *infallibly* right, but I honestly only say thing I believe and feel the Lord inspires me to say, and am willing to be corrected if the Lord corrects me.

However, I also think they would be like me in that I would not say "Such and such is true and I say it as a prophet in the name of Christ, and I *know* it is true" when I did not in fact know it to be true.

So, I don't see it as an issue of infallibility. I see it as an issue of claiming prophetic authority and revealing information purportedly from God. Being "wrong" in such a pronouncement, at least in my opinion, would amount to acting as a false prophet.

But again, I could be wrong in that too, as I could be wrong in how I read Brigham. Note also, I am not accusing you of claiming Brigham is a false prophet, because (1) I don't think you have to believe like I do that being fundamentally wrong in a pronouncement of God's will makes one a false prophet, and (2) I don't think you have to interpret his statement as I do. But I hope you can also agree that my position makes sense. If not, I'd be interested in hearing why.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Brian 2.0]

Wrong. See my previous post. We may not know all the reasons why God does things. It is highly presumptuous of us to sit in judgement on God's actions, based on our limited knowledge, and try to tell God what is right and what is wrong. Whatever God does is right, even if it appears to be discriminatory to us. Assuming that the ban had been commanded of God, it would not have been "discriminatory" from God's perspective, but there would have been reasons for it that would have made it right from God's point of view, even though from our point of view it appears to have been discriminatory.

Woah. Hold on there.

Are you trying to change the meaning of the word "discrimination"?

The ban was racial discrimination. PERIOD. It discriminated based upon race. PERIOD.

You are saying that there may have been reasons God did this, and His ways are always good. That can be your belief. But that doesn't make it NOT discrimination. It simply means that the discrimination in the ban was justified/right/good. But it's still discrimination.

Discrimination doesn't need to have ill intent to be discrimination. It either IS or ISN'T discrimination. The "right" or "wrongness" of such discrimination can be in debate (which is what the debate on this topic has been for years), but it's still discrimination.

Are you trying to say that if racial discrimination comes from God it is no longer racial discrimination?

Please clarify what you mean by "discrimination"

I will state what my definition is of racial discrimination we can be on the same page:

Racial Discrimination: To treat differently a person or group of people based on their racial origins.

Can we agree on this definition? It makes no value judgement of right or wrong.

If you agree with this definition, please go back and read my original post to understand what we are discussing here.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[Log]

I wonder if Brian thinks God is racist for creating races - or does Brian think God did not create races? If Brian does think God created races, how does God escape being labelled racially discriminatory based on Brian's own definition of racial discrimination?

Statistically, Asians and Jews have higher intelligence on average - certainly, that's evidence that those groups were treated differently by God, assuming God created the races.

Inquiring minds want to know!

Edited March 21, 2012 by Log

[BCSpace]

And many of them get published as doctrine anyway in some manual or other without the need for a "thus saith the Lord".

Yes, but those "revelations" as a rule do not introduce new doctrine into the Church.

When published, they become official doctrine. Little things not found in the scriptures like abortion is like unto murder or the notion that if one is not married in this life, one will have that opportunity in the next.

[Cobalt-70]

Not all revelations that prophets receive are written down. In fact, most revelations that they receive are not written down.

If they are not in the form of a written revelation, they are always documented, and a record is kept. Such revelations are rare enough, and special enough, that the church hierarchy treats them as the extraordinary things they are. The best example is the 1978 revelation. It was not a written revelation, but a record of what happened was kept, and it was recognized as a big deal. Records of such an event would never be lost.

[Log]

Records of such an event would never be lost.

Because somewhere there is a *written* rule that says so, right?

[Cobalt-70]

I believe you answered your own call for reference. Is not claiming, as a prophet, in the name of Jesus Christ, the truth of something the very essence of revelation?

Just because he claimed, in the name of Jesus, that something was true doesn't mean that he had a revelation on the subject. Besides, the disturbing "curse of Cain" doctrine for which Young invoked the name of Christ has essentially been repudiated. Had Young said something along the lines of "thus sayeth the Lord," it might be a different story, and we would now have the quandry of a reputed revelation in favor of a doctrine used by Southern ministers to justify slavery. But that's not the situation we face. Young never said he had a revelation.

[Log]

Hey, Cobalt - in your view, was Young an authentic prophet, or not?

[Storm Rider]

These topics have been troublesome for me and have been for many years. Generally I strive to handle them by having faith that Jesus is the head of the Church and in time all things will be revealed. If the leaders of the Church acted inappropriately they will pay for their actions. Though their actions affect far more than they may ever realize, being a prophet or apostle means that you have accepted the call to be a special witness of Jesus Christ and that you will not lean unto your own understanding. Their actions may lead to glory and to utter damnation of their souls.

Their personal salvation is between them and the Lord just as mine is. Would that every action I ever took was in accordance with our Master's will. I would wish the same for all men and yet we are each sinners. Prophets and apostles are first men, then they accept and become apostles and prophets to lead the Church. It would be nice that it were not necessary and the Lord could be on earth and lead us in perfect righteousness. Obviously, that is not his will and we must learn to live by faith.

I am much more circumspect when I listen to the leaders of the Church. I try to listen through the Holy Spirit, but I always remember that these are men trying to do their best within the confines of their own understanding. Sometimes I believe they speak as one filled with the Holy Spirit and at other times not so much. As soon as I put them too high on a pedestal I find that they have fallen short and I have long ago tired of picking up the pieces of my testimony by building it on the leaders of the Church. I have one Master and that is Jesus Christ. All else falls short of him.

[Brian 2.0]

Statistically, Asians and Jews have higher intelligence on average - certainly, that's evidence that those groups were treated differently by God, assuming God created the races.

Wow. please tell me don't believe this. Or that you using some sort of sarcasm.

[zerinus]

Woah. Hold on there.

Are you trying to change the meaning of the word "discrimination"?

The ban was racial discrimination. PERIOD. It discriminated based upon race. PERIOD.

You are saying that there may have been reasons God did this, and His ways are always good. That can be your belief. But that doesn't make it NOT discrimination. It simply means that the discrimination in the ban was justified/right/good. But it's still discrimination.

Discrimination doesn't need to have ill intent to be discrimination. It either IS or ISN'T discrimination. The "right" or "wrongness" of such discrimination can be in debate (which is what the debate on this topic has been for years), but it's still discrimination.

Are you trying to say that if racial discrimination comes from God it is no longer racial discrimination?

Please clarify what you mean by "discrimination"

I will state what my definition is of racial discrimination we can be on the same page:

Racial Discrimination: To treat differently a person or group of people based on their racial origins.

Can we agree on this definition? It makes no value judgement of right or wrong.

If you agree with this definition, please go back and read my original post to understand what we are discussing here.

"Racial discrimination" in English always has a negative meaning--i.e. it means "unfair" or "negative" discrimination. "Positive" discrimination is not called "racial discrimination" at all. Let me illustrate with an example. If I were an employer, and I had a policy of employing only whites, and not giving an equal opportunity to blacks who may have equal or better qualifications, just because they are black, my policy could be rightly described as "racial discrimination". But there is also a positive side to that "discrimination". By discriminating negatively against blacks, I would at the same time be positively discriminating in favor of whites. But it is the negative aspect of it, the unfairness of it, that people have in mind when they talk about "racial discrimination". When you call God's actions "racial discrimination," you are basically saying that God is being "unfair". You are passing a value judgement on God's actions. That is just the nature of the English language. Whereas God would not be unfair. If you can figure out a way of removing the negative nuance "unfairness" associated with the phrase "racial discrimination" when applied to God's actions, I agree that His action of denying certain privileges to certain groups on the basis of their lineage for a certain period of time could be described as "discrimination". However, since in English language it is practically impossible to do that, it would be incorrect to refer to God's actions as "racial discrimination".

Edited March 21, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

When published, they become official doctrine.

Nothing becomes "doctrine" just because it is published.

Little things not found in the scriptures like abortion is like unto murder . . .

Abortion is not like murder. Abortion is forgiveable, whereas murder is not. But it is the wrong thing to do, and it can be derived form scripture. That in fact was the whole point of Elder Packer's remark--that true doctrine can be derived from scripture. It doesn't make it so just because he has said it, or worse still, because it is "published".

. . . or the notion that if one is not married in this life, one will have that opportunity in the next.

As has been pointed out, there is nothing "official" about that doctrine. It is something that we believe, based on various comments made by past leaders, such as this from Joseph Smith, "All your losses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue faithful. By the vision of the Almighty I have seen it." But there is nothing "official" or "unofficial" about it. See also Alma 41:3.

[Senator]

Did not Brigham claim God directly gave him that information? I read his pronouncement as a declaration of revelation. I suppose you and others can rationally read it otherwise. I hope you can agree, however, that my reading is also rational.

The Church must of not gotten the memo!

Because it "doesn't know" of a revelatory nexus.

I see it as an issue of claiming prophetic authority and revealing information purportedly from God. Being "wrong" in such a pronouncement, at least in my opinion, would amount to acting as a false prophet.

Ouch!

Edited March 21, 2012 by Senator

[Senator]

Hey, Cobalt - in your view, was Young an authentic prophet, or not?

Only when acting as such.

[blackstrap]

To some BY rarely if ever "acted as such" . Same with the rest of the leaders. Maybe I should call for a CFR as to when BY was acting as a prophet. Then we all could see what the difference was.