New Editions Of Scriptures Announced

[Rivers]

On a more serious note, I think this is great. Now the critics will just go back to "not knowing that JS had a gun at Carthage" as the main reason to leave the church.

I learned about that one in Sunday school. It was part of an account quoted in the manual.

[Suzie]

A practice supported by doctrine. There. Is that better for you?

Which doctrine?

[Suzie]

One of the best quotes I came across about the ban was from President Kimball:

"The things of God cannot be understood by the spirit of men. It is impossible to always measure and weigh all spiritual things by man’s yardstick of scales. Admittedly, our direct and positive information is limited. I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough. The prophets for 133 years of the church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation. I believe in the living prophets as much or almost more than the dead ones. They are here to clarify and reaffirm. I have served with and under three of them. The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error, which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure. These smart members who would force the issue, and there are many of them, cheapen the issue and certainly bring into contempt the sacred principle of revelation and divine authority. (Spencer w. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, June 1963., p. 448.)

He hints a possible error yet I am not sure why he mentioned that the position of the prophet of the Restoration (Joseph Smith) was that Blacks could not hold the Priesthood, which is historically inaccurate or am I missing something?

[BlueDreams]

He hints a possible error yet I am not sure why he mentioned that the position of the prophet of the Restoration (Joseph Smith) was that Blacks could not hold the Priesthood, which is historically inaccurate or am I missing something?

I can't give you sources, this is just from (faulty) memory....but I think for a while no one really knew when the ban actually commenced. They just assumed that it was there from around the get go, or at least start by JS. It was only later that evidence to the contrary began to really be found and circulated.

With luv,

BD

[canard78]

One of the best quotes I came across about the ban was from President Kimball:

"The things of God cannot be understood by the spirit of men.  It is impossible to always measure and weigh all spiritual things by man’s yardstick of scales.  Admittedly, our direct and positive information is limited.  I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter.  But for me, it is enough.  The prophets for 133 years of the church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation.  I believe in the living prophets as much or almost more than the dead ones.  They are here to clarify and reaffirm.  I have served with and under three of them.  The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory.  I know it could.  I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error, which brought about the deprivation.  If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure.  These smart members who would force the issue, and there are many of them, cheapen the issue and certainly bring into contempt the sacred principle of revelation and divine authority. (Spencer w. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball,  June 1963., p. 448.)

He hints a possible error yet I am not sure why he mentioned that the position of the prophet of the Restoration (Joseph Smith) was that Blacks could not hold the Priesthood, which is historically inaccurate or am I missing something?

This "almost" got added to my book of handy quotes. But the fact that he suggests the previous leaders might have been in error in one breath but then in the other says "smart members" should stay quiet and not "force the issue" undermines the first statement. In making, on the one hand, an incorrect statement about Joseph establishing the ban while also (perhaps) saying the ban was an error he illustrates why simply waiting on the revelation isn't the only appropriate course. Given prophets are not infallible (as he seems to suggest in his statement), isn't the honourable duty of members to offer input to issues of concern. What happened to "common consent?" I wonder what date the priesthood would have been made for all if no attempt had been made by anyone at all to "force the issue."

Some may say "exactly the same date." I doubt it. Wasn't the WoW delivered in response to a little gentle "forcing of the issue." I wonder if the WoW would have been delivered on 27 Feb 1833 if Emma had said nothing and clean up the baccy quietly. And just think, if more people had bravely "forced the issue" of black priesthood earlier, we might have been able to be rid of the "error/practice" far sooner.