John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think that the point is simple: who defined it as doctrine? Where is the revelation? However here is a definition of doctrine:

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2.something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3.a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Also, Robert said that there was no doctrinal justification for the policy.

The doctrinal justification was preexistance worthiness (as quoted above), Book of Abraham, cursed race etc. There was lots of doctrinal justification for the ban. We just don't recognize any of it as doctrine anymore.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

Would your analogy not be more apt to note that the guards are self appointed vigilantes with an agenda, who wantonly throw children over the cliff who have an opinion that varies from theirs?

Heh.

While your scenario perhaps illustrates the fallacious apostate/anti-Mormon talking point du jour I referred to, it in fact bears no relation to reality.

But if you are one who has slipped over the edge, I would suggest that it is not too late to repent of your serious error and to come back. I, for one, would welcome you, as would every LDS "apologist" with whom I am acquainted.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel Peterson]

Would your analogy not be more apt to note that the guards are self appointed vigilantes with an agenda, who wantonly throw children over the cliff who have an opinion that varies from theirs?

The defamation continues.

[halconero]

While this comic is talking about video games and the new playstation I feel that the punchline seems to apply...

Edited February 22, 2013 by halconero

[rongo]

He is a very good man, as good as they come, but cannot set aside his mind and accept the extreme minority view that the Book of Mormon is literally true, and that God the Father literally has a body, etc.

Do you mean "extreme minority views" from within the Church, or outside of the Church? Surely you aren't arguing that Book of Mormon literalicism and belief in God having a physical body are "extreme minority views" among active Mormons.

[Darren10]

Poly #372;

That is perhaps the one statement by the First Presidency which I do not understand.

And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

When did that happen? This causes me to wonder what they were being prompted to convey. And when did the "direct command of from the Lord" occur? My understanding is that Brigham young announced that blacks could no longer receive the Priesthood but gave no reason why. I thin I recall reading that he understood that Joseph Smith had rescinded the priesthood upon blacks who had already been ordained into it. but there's no record of that. Also, if blacks could not receive the priesthood because their forefathers rejected it, why is there no record of Joseph Smith believing any such thing?

[Scott Lloyd]

Dan,

You are an endless font of mirth for me. Thank you.

So you find defamation humorous? Sad.

[Darren10]

Kevin Christiansen #375;

Now that makes much more sense. I'm still baffled about why the First Presidency felt to make the statement they did. As LDS we know and even opely preach that prophets are not infallible and I certainly do not believe they are but I've no doubt that much fasting and prayer went into preparing their statement yet reading it I do not feel the Holy Spirit testifying its truth. I don't recall ever feeling it. I know they were true men of God and held the mantle of prophets under the priesthood yet their statement seemed void of truth at least as far as I and perhaps mortal man may understand.

[Darren10]

The reason I raised this is that it is but one example of a "legitimate" reason to leave the church. When the Church in official meetings makes the claim that the Prophet will never lead the Church astray, and this "policy" becomes a prevailing doctrine of the church for 125 years, ESPECIALLY in as far as it was never officially documented as revelation, then there is a legitimate disconnect between a claim of prophetic infallibility and the action of the Church for those 125 years.

If I understand correctly, the Lord remained silent on the matter of blacks and the priesthood. By remaining silent, from my view, the prophets are not held accountable for leading the church astray or anywhere for that matter.

But the Church never has accounted for the fact that it was a mistake -- albeit McConkie's admission is refreshing.

Fair enough. I get confounded by the whole priesthood ban as well. But frankly I don't know if the church should apologize for it.

Without an official apology, and the ongoing claim of prophetic infallibility,

Who's claiming infallibility? Certainly not the LDS.

I think there is a very legitimate reason to doubt the church's sincerity and authenticity, if I did not have a personal testimony otherwise.

A personal testimony is what everyone should have.

Mormon apologists have constructed a very narrow interpretation of history in order to justify an near-infallible church

Huhhhhhhhhhh???

and scriptural history that largely gets ignored by mainstream historians (e.g. LDS claims of Book of Mormon historicity are not supported by a consensus of non-mormon native american archaeologists)

Maybe people should just renounce the importance of history. That'll be sure to help.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Darren10

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, double standard overly presumptuous much?

I find the double standard humorous.

Delhin article - Not a hit piece.

Self appointed vigilantes with an agenda - defamation.

Double-post much?

I've not seen the Dehlin piece, so I can't comment on it.

But I know defamation when I see it, and calling people like Dan Peterson "vigilantes" who are driving people out of the Church is definitely that.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

Poly #372;

That is perhaps the one statement by the First Presidency which I do not understand.

When did that happen? This causes me to wonder what they were being prompted to convey. And when did the "direct command of from the Lord" occur? My understanding is that Brigham young announced that blacks could no longer receive the Priesthood but gave no reason why.

Brigham Young also said (116 years before 1978) that there were people present in the audience who would live to see the ban lifted. There are other statements in JoD as well that come to mind when OD2 mentions "Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood." The Brethren consistently taught that a future day would come. Those who criticize them for not lifting it much earlier fail to consider that God may have told them "Not right now."

Also, if blacks could not receive the priesthood because their forefathers rejected it, why is there no record of Joseph Smith believing any such thing?

There is, but people who don't want the ban to be God-sanctioned at any time discount them as being made-up or biased because those who quoted Joseph were racist (e.g., Zebedee Coltrin, Abraham O. Smoot, etc.).

[Darren10]

Darren,

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Please explain how:

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord.

Does not mean revelation.

I simply asked when did that happen; not if it is or is not revelation.

[Darren10]

Brigham Young also said (116 years before 1978) that there were people present in the audience who would live to see the ban lifted. There are other statements in JoD as well that come to mind when OD2 mentions "Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood." The Brethren consistently taught that a future day would come. Those who criticize them for not lifting it much earlier fail to consider that God may have told them "Not right now."

A vague announcement about a future time of the priesthood does not concern me nearly as much as an official response from the First Presidency of the Church.

There is, but people who don't want the ban to be God-sanctioned at any time discount them as being made-up or biased because those who quoted Joseph were racist (e.g., Zebedee Coltrin, Abraham O. Smoot, etc.).

What quotes are you talking about?

Edited February 23, 2013 by Darren10

[rongo]

A vague announcement about a future time ofthe pruiesthood does not concern me nearly as much as an official response from the First Presidency of the Church.

The problem is, I don't think the prophets themselves had clear-cut and precise knowledge on this issue, other than a strong feeling that it wasn't the right time. When Elder McKay asked President Grant about this (specifically with a mixed-race couple in mind he had met in the Pacific), President Grant told him that he agreed but wasn't comfortable pushing for a change unless God made it clear to him that it was His will. That's an important factor ---- many people today, apparently, would be more influenced by social pressure or presentism/insistence that God would/wouldn't do certain things, even if God told them to "stay put for now."

What quotes are you talking about?

Saturday, May 31st, 1879, at the house of President Abraham O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 O’clock p.m.

President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young Jr., Abraham O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met, and the subject of ordaining Negroes to the Priesthood was presented.

Brother Coltrin: The Spring that we went up in Zion’s Camp in 1834, Brother Joseph sent Brother J. P. Green and me out to gather up means to assist in gathering out the Saints from Jackson County, Missouri. On our return home we got in conversation about the Negro having a right to the Priesthood, and I took up the side that he had no right. Brother Green argued that he had. The subject got so warm between us that he said he would report me to Brother Joseph when we got home for preaching false doctrine, which doctrine that I advocated was that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. “all right” said I, “I hope you will.” And when we got to Kirtland, we both went to Brother Joseph’s office together to make our returns, and Brother Green was as good as his word and reported to Brother Joseph that I said that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, “Brother Zebedee is right, for the Spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.” He made no reference to Scripture at all, but such was his decision. I don’t recollect ever having any conversation with him afterwards on this subject, but I have heard him say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood. (Journal of L. John Nuttall 1:290-293)

Abraham Smoot inquired of the Prophet Joseph Smith: “What should be done with the Negroes in the South as I was preaching to them? [Joseph] said I could baptize them by the consent of their masters, BUT NOT TO CONFER THE PRIESTHOOD UPON THEM. (L. John Nuttall Journal, May 31, 1879).”

What then is the reason for the continued racial exclusion?

The answer is simple. The Prophet Joseph Smith was commanded by God to withdraw the priesthood from Elijah Able [sic], and revoke the ordination. There is no exception. The continued church’s policy over the years is an evident fact that Presidents Young, Taylor, Woodruff and Snow, as well as Heber C. Kimball, William Clayton, and other leaders of the time, all knew of this excluding doctrine and continued to abide by it. Although there is no official Church record as to the revocation, Elijah Able affirmed the fact to father, Thomas A. Shreeve, when both were living in the Salt Lake 10th Ward, during 1872-1877. At the time, Bro. Able told young Thomas, who baptized Able’s grandchildren that the Prophet Joseph “came to him with tears in his eyes one day, and told him [Able] that he had been commanded by the Lord to withdraw the holy priesthood from him.”

—

Patriarch Shreeve, testified many times before his death in 1931, of the facts in the case, and of his close relationship with Brother Able. As of this date there are still living three members of the Shreeve family, who know of the facts to which their father testified Elijah Able told him. (Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr., The Salt Lake Tribune, “Forum,” 26 Oct. 1970)

[why me]

The doctrinal justification was preexistance worthiness (as quoted above), Book of Abraham, cursed race etc. There was lots of doctrinal justification for the ban. We just don't recognize any of it as doctrine anymore.

I don't think that the book of abraham was the justification. But I do think that the ban was started by Brigham Young and Orson Hyde for reasons that only they know. It became a gradual process after the murder of the Joseph Smith and it was touched off with what Black Pete did when he married several white women without authorization. But I see no revelation at all in it and none is recorded.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

Would your analogy not be more apt to note that the guards are self appointed vigilantes with an agenda, who wantonly throw children over the cliff who have an opinion that varies from theirs?

I have thought more about this and concluded that, if the analogy needs augmenting at all, we could properly do it in this way:

Some of the more foolish children take it into their heads to deliberately jump over the edge. One even tries to drag a reluctant playmate with him.

The guard lacks the strength to prevent them both from falling, because the one child is resisting him so fiercely. But the guard does manage to rescue the other child by extricating him from the grasp of the aggressive child.

At the town meeting, some label the guard as a "vigilante" because he refused to stand off and let both children -- the aggressive one and the unwilling one -- go over the edge together.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[wayfarer]

Do you mean "extreme minority views" from within the Church, or outside of the Church? Surely you aren't arguing that Book of Mormon literalicism and belief in God having a physical body are "extreme minority views" among active Mormons.

outside

[rongo]

outside

Whew! I was gonna say ------ it kind of goes without saying that literal belief in the BoM and anthropomorphism of God are pretty much a given within the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Whew! I was gonna say ------ it kind of goes without saying that literal belief in the BoM and anthropomorphism of God are pretty much a given within the Church.

And since only a tiny fraction of the world's population is LDS, I think it rather unremarkable that "a minority" have a literal belief in the Book of Mormon and the anthropomorphism of God.

Isn't this just one more instance of the vox populi vox dei fallacy?

[Darren10]

The problem is, I don't think the prophets themselves had clear-cut and precise knowledge on this issue, other than a strong feeling that it wasn't the right time. When Elder McKay asked President Grant about this (specifically with a mixed-race couple in mind he had met in the Pacific), President Grant told him that he agreed but wasn't comfortable pushing for a change unless God made it clear to him that it was His will.

And I'm 100% OK with that.

That's an important factor ---- many people today, apparently, would be more influenced by social pressure or presentism/insistence that God would/wouldn't do certain things, even if God told them to "stay put for now."

I would agree that many would focus on social pressure above that which the Lord commands.

Saturday, May 31st, 1879, at the house of President Abraham O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 O’clock p.m.

President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young Jr., Abraham O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met, and the subject of ordaining Negroes to the Priesthood was presented.

Brother Coltrin: The Spring that we went up in Zion’s Camp in 1834, Brother Joseph sent Brother J. P. Green and me out to gather up means to assist in gathering out the Saints from Jackson County, Missouri. On our return home we got in conversation about the Negro having a right to the Priesthood, and I took up the side that he had no right. Brother Green argued that he had. The subject got so warm between us that he said he would report me to Brother Joseph when we got home for preaching false doctrine, which doctrine that I advocated was that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. “all right” said I, “I hope you will.” And when we got to Kirtland, we both went to Brother Joseph’s office together to make our returns, and Brother Green was as good as his word and reported to Brother Joseph that I said that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, “Brother Zebedee is right, for the Spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.” He made no reference to Scripture at all, but such was his decision. I don’t recollect ever having any conversation with him afterwards on this subject, but I have heard him say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood. (Journal of L. John Nuttall 1:290-293)

Abraham Smoot inquired of the Prophet Joseph Smith: “What should be done with the Negroes in the South as I was preaching to them? [Joseph] said I could baptize them by the consent of their masters, BUT NOT TO CONFER THE PRIESTHOOD UPON THEM. (L. John Nuttall Journal, May 31, 1879).”

What then is the reason for the continued racial exclusion?

The answer is simple. The Prophet Joseph Smith was commanded by God to withdraw the priesthood from Elijah Able [sic], and revoke the ordination. There is no exception. The continued church’s policy over the years is an evident fact that Presidents Young, Taylor, Woodruff and Snow, as well as Heber C. Kimball, William Clayton, and other leaders of the time, all knew of this excluding doctrine and continued to abide by it. Although there is no official Church record as to the revocation, Elijah Able affirmed the fact to father, Thomas A. Shreeve, when both were living in the Salt Lake 10th Ward, during 1872-1877. At the time, Bro. Able told young Thomas, who baptized Able’s grandchildren that the Prophet Joseph “came to him with tears in his eyes one day, and told him [Able] that he had been commanded by the Lord to withdraw the holy priesthood from him.”

—

Patriarch Shreeve, testified many times before his death in 1931, of the facts in the case, and of his close relationship with Brother Able. As of this date there are still living three members of the Shreeve family, who know of the facts to which their father testified Elijah Able told him. (Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr., The Salt Lake Tribune, “Forum,” 26 Oct. 1970)

Thank you for that. I do hold historical background in high estimation. Here's some problems I have with that citation.

First, I am inherently skeptical whenever someone, no matter who they were, came out decades after Joseph Smith's death and conveyed what Joseph Smith said or did. To me this is a very unreliable way to ascertain what Joseph Smith did actually say or act he chose to do.

Second, If the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to revoke the priesthood form Elijah Able, why didn't he? Of course one can say that Joseph Smith was killed before he got around to doing it but to say that, "Presidents Young, Taylor, Woodruff and Snow, as well as Heber C. Kimball, William Clayton, and other leaders of the time, all knew of this excluding doctrine and continued to abide by it" regarding the blacks not having the priesthood, none of them revoked the priesthood from Elijah Able, so why not? Furthermore, Able attended the temple as well as his descendants so far as I understand.

Third, if there is any truth to Joseph Smith saying, "I have heard him say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" than what of revelation that certain blacks around the world, namely from the Pacific Islands, received the priesthood while only African and American blacks did not? I understand that the reasoning was that the Pacific blacks were not of the same black race as African and American blacks but they still had lots of drops of 'Negro blood' in them.

These events do not add up to these statements by Smoot.

Also, could you provide a link to your source? I'd appreciate it greatly.

Here's my main source of understanding the history behind the blacks and the priesthood: http://www.blacklds.org/history

Edited February 23, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

And since only a tiny fraction of the world's population is LDS, I think it rather unremarkable that "a minority" have a literal belief in the Book of Mormon and the anthropomorphism of God.

Isn't this just one more instance of the vox populi vox dei fallacy?

Wayfarer seems to pick and choose when to hold on to human facts and not. I wonder why wayfarer is even remotely concerned with this current event fact. Who cares if it's tru or not? All that matters is that God can provide the truth. Well, that's the line of reasoning he gives regarding the Church and scriptures, except the Book of Abraham.

[rpn]

The answer is simple. The Prophet Joseph Smith was commanded by God to withdraw the priesthood from Elijah Able [sic], and revoke the ordination. There is no exception. The continued church’s policy over the years is an evident fact that Presidents Young, Taylor, Woodruff and Snow, as well as Heber C. Kimball, William Clayton, and other leaders of the time, all knew of this excluding doctrine and continued to abide by it. Although there is no official Church record as to the revocation, Elijah Able affirmed the fact to father, Thomas A. Shreeve, when both were living in the Salt Lake 10th Ward, during 1872-1877. At the time, Bro. Able told young Thomas, who baptized Able’s grandchildren that the Prophet Joseph “came to him with tears in his eyes one day, and told him [Able] that he had been commanded by the Lord to withdraw the holy priesthood from him.”

If that were true, then why would the Church have sent Elijah Able on another mission to Ohio in 1884. In 1879 there was a lot of revisionist history going on. A group of the apostles were charged with finding out about Bro Able's priesthood and determined that he had been ordained, and there was nothing that made the ordination invalid. Thereafter he was sent on the mission.

Now, there could be a way that the events are not contradictory ---- The saints of color were deprived of temple access and they must have mourned that. Maybe Bro Able thought he saw Bro Joseph in vision, but what he was really doing is trying to get over the pain of the exclusion by thinking there must be a withdrawal. I don't put a lot of faith, though, in anything Zeebedee Coltrin said. 1) there is the D&C language where he was sucking up to what he thought a leader wanted; 2) Depending on the account you believe he was either present or actually performed the ordination on Elijah Able, yet in SL he denied that EA had ever received the priesthood.

Edited February 23, 2013 by rpn

[Darren10]

Here's two tidbits from my #402 link:

Elijah Abel’s Son Ordained an Elder

On November 27, Enoch Abel, son of Elijah Abel, is ordained an Elder.

Jane Manning James Receives a Special Temple Sealing

Jane Manning James has been a faithful black member of the Church since the days of Joseph Smith, Jr. She lived with the Smiths and was promised by Joseph and Emma that she could be adopted into their family. After several letter exchanges with Church leadership, she is given a special temple sealing as a “servant” to Joseph Smith Jr. She continues to pursue her endowment.

These go against what Smoot and Coltrin claimed regarding Joseph Smith instituting the priesthood ban.

[Robert F. Smith]

We don't know much about the hat trick. In fact, I would assume that his eyes could not handle such light being produced in a hat. So, something else was also happening. Place your head in a hat to translate a book and pretend a light is forming inside with words. My eyes couldn't handle it. So, could it actually be as your picture assumes? Also, there were other means that the translation occurred. What to do with multiple accounts? Have a picture of all of them? But we have nothing from Joseph...only second hand accounts. It would have helped if Joseph would have described it.

I would also have problems breathing since my mouth is in the hat and if my mouth is completely inside the hat saying words, the scribe would hear nothing but mumbling.

The best descriptions have Joseph's face in the hat, on a table, sitting across from and visible to his scribe. Think of him looking at an instrument (a solid state unit) with a light emitting diode (LED screen), such as we use in modern times. His mouth need not be inside the hat, but he does need to be able to shield from excess light. So nose, forehead, and eyes, perhaps. There is nothing beyond belief in natural law here.

[MormonMason]

Here's two tidbits from my #402 link:

These go against what Smoot and Coltrin claimed regarding Joseph Smith instituting the priesthood ban.

Check the year dates on those two tidbits. They also would go against the ban originating with Brigham Young, too, if you really wanted to take it that far.

Both tidbits postdate 1847, in any case. Exceptions were made, even up to the time of Joseph Fielding Smith. I once read reports from a claimed eyewitness that a black man was ordained and set apart as a Branch President in 1970, in Brazil. That, of course, preceded the lifting of the ban policy in 1978.

I have also read council minutes from the time of John Taylor as President of the Church. The question of Blacks being able to be ordained and go to the temple. People presented their statements. John Taylor then instructed those present that he would then consult the materials in the possession of the Church and take it to prayer as to whether the policy would change. President Taylor gave the decision a few days later. The policy would continue.

Another time came during the administration of David O. McKay when they took to meeting in a council to make a determination. He stated that he thought it might be possible that God would change the policy. Some time later he was asked by a newspaper reporter whether there would be a change in the long-standing policy. He told the reporter something to the effect of "not in your or my lifetime." The policy continued.

I've read the documents. Unfortunately, I do not now have any copies with me or accessible to me without getting permissions and doing some digging again. Someone I know who had a lot of stuff on Blacks and the priesthood lost a lot of it in a move, including personal testimony of various people. Some of it is unrecoverable, which is truly unfortunate. In my mind, some of that material settled the question of whether revelation were behind the policy or not--in the affirmative.

Edited February 25, 2013 by MormonMason