Prophet And Church Paradigms: Expectations And Anomaly

[mfbukowski]

We have to watch presentism here.

The world is very different now than it was on the American frontier 150 years ago. We cannot put ourselves in that situation, and frankly, Canard, my old buddy, I am not even sure you understand American racism and what a divisive social phenomenon it has been in this country, you Brit, you. We cannot even speculate on the level of persecution which would have been added to Mormons had the church then been integrated. Would the church have survived? In Missouri and Illinois? There are factors here beyond our present comprehension.

Many of these old wounds are still tender, and it may be wise to keep the bandages on for a while still. There are still churches in the south which are de-facto segregated- the Blacks go to their Assembly of God and the Whites go to theirs. It is our Great American Tragedy and we are still not over it, but the fever has subsided somewhat.

Two of my kids were missionaries in the south, and both said we were now the most integrated of any churches in the area. That should stand for something.

Edited June 26, 2013 by mfbukowski

[tyler90az]

I think you can develop your personality to be whatever you want. Well Myer-briggs is a great indicator of your personality it fails to account for change. The fact that with personal development you can develop your personality to your liking.

A good example may be people who go on missions. It would be my guess that most who start their mission as introverts come out extroverts.

[Calm]

It would be my guess that most who start their mission as introverts come out extroverts.

My behaviour is often seen as in the category of extrovert, but I would never describe myself as an extrovert because my feelings are and always have been in the category of introvert. I have only managed to act in what is interpreted as extroverted ways because of other needs, but if I could get those needs satisfied without having to engage in extrovertlike behaviour, you wouldn't see any such from me.

Based on my own example, I don't think you can assume that just because some people can overcome habits of behaviour that originated due to introversion or extroversion, that means their personality has changed.

[tyler90az]

My behaviour is often seen as in the category of extrovert, but I would never describe myself as an extrovert because my feelings are and always have been in the category of introvert. I have only managed to act in what is interpreted as extroverted ways because of other needs, but if I could get those needs satisfied without having to engage in extrovertlike behaviour, you wouldn't see any such from me.

Based on my own example, I don't think you can assume that just because some people can overcome habits of behaviour that originated due to introversion or extroversion, that means their personality has changed.

Do not know enough on this topic to say for sure one way or the other.

[Kevin Christensen]

I think you can develop your personality to be whatever you want. Well Myer-briggs is a great indicator of your personality it fails to account for change. The fact that with personal development you can develop your personality to your liking.

A good example may be people who go on missions. It would be my guess that most who start their mission as introverts come out extroverts.

All the research I have seen shows that type preference remains consistent through life, though in later life, people can and do tend develop their non-preferences. I started and ended my mission as INFP, though I did not know the theory behind it. Now I do. I've read about eight books on type theory and practice. I've thought a lot about it over many years.

It's easy to call shyness something to overcome with practice, but it misses the point that shyness and introversion are not necessarily the same thing. To tell someone to stop being such a dreamer, come down from the clouds, get your head out of books, be rational and logical, and make a decision and stick to it, as though, dreams, imagination, books, feelings, and deferring decisions while seeking more information are all character flaws to be overcome. That sort of thinking is one way to approach life, and many can do well with it, because it is their nature. Supposing, characteristically, that you can be whatever you want to be, because I say you can and want the best for you. All you have to do is set your mind to it. That's ESTJ goal oriented thinking, and it shows a characteristic insensitivity to feeling, and a lack of perception. And meaning only the best while doing so. The film The Dead Poets Society revolves around the kinds of tension it can cause.

I'm also right handed. For all the uses to which I can learn to use my left hand, it remains my non-preferred, second best. For all that I can and do develop my non-preferences, for all the situations in which I can use the ESTJ functions, they remain my non-preferred and second best. To the degree in which people are pressured to reject their own inner preferences and to conform to someone else's notions of character, they become divided and false to themselves. Such things have consequences. I've seen the consequences from the inside, and I did not like them. For me, reading about type was tremendously liberating, permitting me to recognize and value my own gifts and tendencies,validating my difference. It was rather like in the story of Rumplestiltskin. The heroine is being forced throughout to conform to other people's expectations, asked to do things that she cannot do, and ultimately asked to a pay an unpayable price. Once she can put a name to the dwarf, it throws a tantrum and disappears. See Survival Games the Personalities Play by Eve Delunas, for instance, for an exploration of the costs of trying to live against type, and the healing power of working with preferences, and the needs they serve. Keirsey also goes into this sort of thing, the personal consequences of being pushed to conform to external expectations.

Entering college, I felt a lot of role-model based pressure to conform to ESTJ patterns, and it did not work for me. Later, in going to my strengths, and finishing my English degree, I thrived, and felt a change in my sense of authenticity to self. Delunas' book explained why.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

P.S.

All that being said, consider the serenity prayer: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to the things, I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Anyone with any kind of addiction needs to be very careful about saying, "This is just the way I am."

Edited June 26, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Danzo]

As I've just said. If BY can be shown to be in error with the benefit of hindsight (eg Adam/God or men on the sun amongst others) then it means the people living at the time of BY were being lead astray. Or if they ignored a dead prophet (Nephi1 or Jospeph) who taught that all were equal regardless of race and instead followed their living prophets who taught they were not then they were being lead astray.

I appreciate I just said in my previous post that I wouldn't discuss blacks and the priesthood on this thread. I guess I'm also errant.

So if BY can be shown to have lead astray people living at the time then it means a living prophet can lead living people astray.

BRM's "forget everything I said about..." statement/retraction also means that at the time they were said the people of the time they were first said were being led astray.

So how are we led astray today by our prophets? I'd hesitate to answer that as it's going to open a whole other list of hot-topics. Having said that, it seems that lots of what today's prophets say is a re-quote of dead prophets anyway. The scriptures and latter day (dead) prophets appear in almost every conference talk or Ensign article.

The point is that they can lead astray due to their errancy. So when they say they can't they are already leading people astray by even saying they can't.

So to summarize, You discount the advice to follow the living prophet because you have judged that people were lead astray by following the dead prophets.

[Stone holm]

Of course we give deference to them, but the living one is more important. That is the point of the talk. Listen to what the prophet is telling you to do now instead of what other prophets told other people.

It seems everyone is hung up about what brigham young said, and not enough on what president monson says.

No one seems to give me an example on what is wrong with the 14 points as it pertains to living prophets.

All anyone can come up with is why the 14 points are wrong when it comes to dead prophets. Which is the point of the whole talk

Really? You think that most of the members of the Church give greater deference to Pres. Monson than to the Prophet Joseph? I seriously doubt that.

[Danzo]

Really? You think that most of the members of the Church give greater deference to Pres. Monson than to the Prophet Joseph? I seriously doubt that.

I think they should

[Stone holm]

I think they should

Possibly, except I recall something about the "best blood" referring to the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum, and I doubt that very many Mormons would agree with you.

[tyler90az]

All the research I have seen shows that type preference remains consistent through life, though in later life, people can and do tend develop their non-preferences. I started and ended my mission as INFP, though I did not know the theory behind it. Now I do. I've read about eight books on type theory and practice. I've thought a lot about it over many years.

It's easy to call shyness something to overcome with practice, but it misses the point that shyness and introversion are not necessarily the same thing. To tell someone to stop being such a dreamer, come down from the clouds, get your head out of books, be rational and logical, and make a decision and stick to it, as though, dreams, imagination, books, feelings, and deferring decisions while seeking more information are all character flaws to be overcome. That sort of thinking is one way to approach life, and many can do well with it, because it is their nature. Supposing, characteristically, that you can be whatever you want to be, because I say you can and want the best for you. All you have to do is set your mind to it. That's ESTJ goal oriented thinking, and it shows a characteristic insensitivity to feeling, and a lack of perception. And meaning only the best while doing so. The film The Dead Poets Society revolves around the kinds of tension it can cause.

I'm also right handed. For all the uses to which I can learn to use my left hand, it remains my non-preferred, second best. For all that I can and do develop my non-preferences, for all the situations in which I can use the ESTJ functions, they remain my non-preferred and second best. To the degree in which people are pressured to reject their own inner preferences and to conform to someone else's notions of character, they become divided and false to themselves. Such things have consequences. I've seen the consequences from the inside, and I did not like them. For me, reading about type was tremendously liberating, permitting me to recognize and value my own gifts and tendencies,validating my difference. It was rather like in the story of Rumplestiltskin. The heroine is being forced throughout to conform to other people's expectations, asked to do things that she cannot do, and ultimately asked to a pay an unpayable price. Once she can put a name to the dwarf, it throws a tantrum and disappears. See Survival Games the Personalities Play by Eve Delunas, for instance, for an exploration of the costs of trying to live against type, and the healing power of working with preferences, and the needs they serve. Keirsey also goes into this sort of thing, the personal consequences of being pushed to conform to external expectations.

Entering college, I felt a lot of role-model based pressure to conform to ESTJ patterns, and it did not work for me. Later, in going to my strengths, and finishing my English degree, I thrived, and felt a change in my sense of authenticity to self. Delunas' book explained why.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

P.S.

All that being said, consider the serenity prayer: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to the things, I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Anyone with any kind of addiction needs to be very careful about saying, "This is just the way I am."

I tested as an INTP awhile ago. Yet, I feel like I am a very capable social person.

[Danzo]

Possibly, except I recall something about the "best blood" referring to the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum, and I doubt that very many Mormons would agree with you.

According to his talk, ETB agrees with me.

[Calm]

I tested as an INTP awhile ago. Yet, I feel like I am a very capable social person.

I don't think INTP implies social awkwardness, just a preference for at times being on one's own or with small groups of a few friends rather than larger groups. The idea of introvert/extrovert is that the first is more energized by being alone or in an intimate setting while the second is by being with people in larger social situations.

You should be pleased, you get " Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, and Thomas Jefferson". I get Princess Diana and Richard Gere. (also Shakespeare and a few other notable authors and Jung himself...can't complain about that last one.)

Edited June 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

We have to watch presentism here.

The world is very different now than it was on the American frontier 150 years ago. We cannot put ourselves in that situation, and frankly, Canard, my old buddy, I am not even sure you understand American racism and what a divisive social phenomenon it has been in this country, you Brit, you. We cannot even speculate on the level of persecution which would have been added to Mormons had the church then been integrated. Would the church have survived? In Missouri and Illinois? There are factors here beyond our present comprehension.

Many of these old wounds are still tender, and it may be wise to keep the bandages on for a while still. There are still churches in the south which are de-facto segregated- the Blacks go to their Assembly of God and the Whites go to theirs. It is our Great American Tragedy and we are still not over it, but the fever has subsided somewhat.

Two of my kids were missionaries in the south, and both said we were now the most integrated of any churches in the area. That should stand for something.

Clearly today we have put our racist past behind us. That stands for something.

I still don't see how the "Great American Tragedy" - one of Satan's greatest victories - is considered an excusable part of the "only true and living church."

I would expect this from a church based on the philosophy of individuals justified with misinterpreted scripture. But all of our leaders claim more than this.

As for the black priesthood issue being a practical policy to avoid persecution... That didn't stop Joseph, Strang, Joseph III etc. Persecution didn't stop the Christians in Roman amphitheatres. Persecution didn't stop Abinadi or Martin Luther.

If the policy was Brigham's to avoid persecution then it's not preached as such.

If it was God's pragmatic policy to avoid the church being crushed then where was the revelation and why did it take Him so long to rescind it (even long after it would have been welcomed).

[Danzo]

Clearly today we have put our racist past behind us. That stands for something.

I still don't see how the "Great American Tragedy" - one of Satan's greatest victories - is considered an excusable part of the "only true and living church."

I would expect this from a church based on the philosophy of individuals justified with misinterpreted scripture. But all of our leaders claim more than this.

As for the black priesthood issue being a practical policy to avoid persecution... That didn't stop Joseph, Strang, Joseph III etc. Persecution didn't stop the Christians in Roman amphitheatres. Persecution didn't stop Abinadi or Martin Luther.

If the policy was Brigham's to avoid persecution then it's not preached as such.

If it was God's pragmatic policy to avoid the church being crushed then where was the revelation and why did it take Him so long to rescind it (even long after it would have been welcomed).

Have you ever though that the church was not ready? That the lord was not going to ask his people to do something that the were not ready to do yet?

Do we always need to know the reason for every action?

[canard78]

Have you ever though that the church was not ready? That the lord was not going to ask his people to do something that the were not ready to do yet?

Do we always need to know the reason for every action?

The question of this thread is prophet paradigms. It's one paradigm to imagine that every act of a prophet (when speaking as a prophet) is also the voice and will of God.

In order for it to have been done under God's instruction we'd expect evidence of revelation. We have none. Instead we have policy and practice based on prejudice.

How many people protested Abel's ordination at the time of Joseph? None that I'm aware of.

So to return again to the OP (which isn't simply about blacks and the priesthood and I apologise for my part it making this thread as much)... Some people can accept that prophets simply do things based on their own opinions, not instruction from the heavens. Sometimes, even when they and we think they are acting as a prophet, the source of their inspiration is their environment and personal attitudes... not a divine sanction.

I readily hold my hands up as saying that's a paradigm I struggle with. But given the evidence it's hard to conclude anything else. What I have to work on is not following that to its ultimate conclusion which, as mfbukowski suggests, leads to the door.

[canard78]

Sorry it's taken a little while to reply to this. Lots to consider.

One of my favorite Brigham Young quotes, via Nibley's "Brigham Young and the Enemy" is this:

"There is one principle I wish to urge upon the Saints in a way that it may remain with them—that is, to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are."201

That is one of the reasons I like Type Theory. It helps me understand people as they are, and not as I am. The same goes for the Perry Scheme, and in trying to understand Brigham in his own context rather than mine.

One key is that pure knowledge will have the effect of enlarging my soul. What effect will impure knowledge have? If I feel my soul contracting towards someone, is that a clue about the nature of my knowledge?

Another helpful quote from the same essay:

"If brethren and sisters are overtaken in fault, your hearts should be filled with kindness—with brotherly, angelic feeling—to overlook their faults as far as possible."202

Is Brigham an exception? If he was overtaken in a fault, should my heart be filled with bitterness, devilish contempt, and focus all my attention his faults as far as possible?

You're right, he's not an exception. Nobody's perfect. My issue is that for over 130 years his 'fault' (what SWK discreetly called an error) was perpetuated as the will and voice of God. There are still even people on this board doing so.

What fits my paradigm is that in any large organization there people that talk like this because they actually think like this. Hoffer's book The True Believer argues that no mass movement ever succeeded without such people because only they are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to build it up. In some aspects, the talk reflects ESTJ thinking. In others, just as important, it reflects the early stages of the Perry Scheme.

I don't struggle with it. It's not a talk I would ever quote. It's social history, and a barometer where certain types hold to for security and others fixate on for other reasons.

I just think are other ideas and thinkers what deserve my attention.

Astray in general, as an absolute concept? As in wrong about everything all the time, or in a different sense. I pointed towards several articles that

point out Brigham Young's remarkably inspired and still relevant insights on education, leadership, education, economics, the afterlife and numerous practical issues.

Astray relative to the expressly defined "authority of my church" in D&C 1 which bluntly says of LDS leaders, "inasmuch as they erred it shall be made manifest..." I don't any time scales defined. No "immediately" or even "within the month." I went through the D&C looking for any guarentees on prophets. It's "Expedience."

You're right, he was a brilliant, progressive leader in many other ways. Perhaps I have made the black priesthood issue too much about one man. There were umpteen other prophets and apostles who could have reversed this. Problem is, even until the 1960s there were apostles who, in their private writings, showed little desire to actively seek a solution. I suppose errors can only made manifest when people are willing to ask.

But that again has implications. What if no-one has actually asked God whether denying women the priesthood is a "fault/error?" What if no-one has actually checked in with God whether same-sex marriage is being correctly interpreted from the 'writings of dead prophets' (who may themselves have also been products of their own environment.

If we're always limited in our revelation by the social enlightenment of the day then prophets seem a little limited as a concept. I accept that may well be the reality. Like you say, it's a new paradigm. It's not a particularly popular one. But it probably works better than a 14 fundamental paradigm.

In my reading of the social context (the Stirling Adams essay in BYU Studies and more), Brigham Young may have been one of the agents in introducing the ban, but he did not invent the thinking. He was swathed in it, as were a great many other people. The Civil War was still fourteen years away. It was such a divisive issue that its effects are still evidenced in the existence a church called The Southern Baptist Convention. And even after the Civil War, it took another hundred years for most people to prepare their minds properly.

One astute LDS writer posted an article this year suggesting that one effect of delayed LDS response to the Civil Rights movement is that when the ban ended, the emotion of the overwhelming majority of members was elation and relief.

Joseph Smith once commented that God adapts himself to our capacity to understand. The alternative, if you stop to think about it, would not produce a great deal of understanding.

As I said before to MFB... no-one (that I know of) objected to Joseph ordaining Abel.

The Strangites and RLDS didn't introduce the ban and weren't annihilated (though I'm not sure whether it was only in principle and how many blacks were actually ordained)

Consensus and truth may be very different things, due to a wide range of considerations. Were we born to align ourselves with consensus or with truth?

You are welcome. I try. I'm just passing along thoughts I like.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Truth... I hope. But apparently some truth is only available once consensus is reached first.

[Danzo]

The question of this thread is prophet paradigms. It's one paradigm to imagine that every act of a prophet (when speaking as a prophet) is also the voice and will of God.

In order for it to have been done under God's instruction we'd expect evidence of revelation. We have none. Instead we have policy and practice based on prejudice.

How many people protested Abel's ordination at the time of Joseph? None that I'm aware of.

So to return again to the OP (which isn't simply about blacks and the priesthood and I apologise for my part it making this thread as much)... Some people can accept that prophets simply do things based on their own opinions, not instruction from the heavens. Sometimes, even when they and we think they are acting as a prophet, the source of their inspiration is their environment and personal attitudes... not a divine sanction.

I readily hold my hands up as saying that's a paradigm I struggle with. But given the evidence it's hard to conclude anything else. What I have to work on is not following that to its ultimate conclusion which, as mfbukowski suggests, leads to the door.

correct me if I'm wrong your position is.

1. Unless there is written evidence, of a revelation, the church's policy are not divinely inspired

2. Without a doubt, the priesthood ban was wrong

2. The church was lead astray by its prophets from 1850(ish) to 1978

3. Therefore ETB was wrong to recommend that we follow the prophet.

4. The promise that the prophet will not lead us astray is wrong

My position is.

1. We don't know the reason for the priesthood ban

2. We don't know it wasn't the best thing for the church at the time

3. The lord can and often does give commandments due to our weaknesses that he later rescinds

4. Perhaps sometimes we are not always ready to live a higher law and must live a lower law until we are ready (United Order comes to mind, gather to Utah)

5. Although we can not judge what was right in the past (We don't have all of the information), we can know what to do now.

6. The current revelation does not support the ban.

7. The current prophet may tell us to do things that previous prophets said were wrong, and were wrong for those he presided over

8. previous prophets told their people to do things that were right for them, but wrong for us.

9. Therefore the current prophet is more important the the past prophets

10. I believe the Current prophet will not lead us astray.

11. I believe that was the point of ETBs talk.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Danzo

[Stone holm]

Have you ever though that the church was not ready? That the lord was not going to ask his people to do something that the were not ready to do yet?

Do we always need to know the reason for every action?

I agree, the Church was not ready because racism was still too strong amongst the members. Sometimes The Lord sets a policy without necessarily revealing the reason and then since we are the true Church men start spinning justifications for the policy and they are not likely to find the reason to be their own deficiency especially if they have some OT story or the pre existence on which to hang their tale.

[canard78]

correct me if I'm wrong your position is.

1. Unless there is written evidence, of a revelation, the church's policy are not divinely inspired

2. Without a doubt, the priesthood ban was wrong

2. The church was lead astray by its prophets from 1850(ish) to 1978

3. Therefore ETB was wrong to recommend that we follow the prophet.

4. The promise that the prophet will not lead us astray is wrong

You've oversimplified it a little. My position on your points are:

1. If there is no written evidence of a revelation, no scriptural basis and no acceptance by common consent then there's no evidence that a policy is divinely inspired. If someone wants me to believe that BY and his peers were acting under the direction of God, I'd like to see some evidence that they ever claimed to have received a revelation to do so. I've seen none. On that particular topic, it's my conclusion that the ban was no divinely inspired.

2. Yes, I believe it was wrong and should never have happed.

2 (again?). On that particular issue, yes, I believe the church was wrong to bar black men from the priesthood. It should never have happened. That doesn't mean the church was lead astray in every aspect of the gospel. But I do believe they were on that point.

3. That's an oversimplification of what I'm saying. I believe it's wrong to teach people (or leave them with the impression) that the prophet can say anything on any topic and, if "acting as a prophet" always be right. By all means read, apply and test the principles of a prophet. I respect them as inspiring, inspired men who can eloquently express the will and mind of God. So I do try to follow and apply the principles taught by prophets (both living and dead). But I do so with a reliance on my own relationship with God in the first instance. I consider their words to be a good framework for walking my own path to godliness.

4. If taken unilaterally and unquestioningly, then yes. The idea that an imperfect, fallible man could "never lead us astray" is an internal contradiction. Having said that, if I continue the theme of personal responsibility for my journey through life then fundamental 4 is correct. If I am mature enough to accept or reject the words of prophets based on my own life and application of my God-inspired personal curriculum then the prophet can't lead me astray. In reality only I can lead myself astray. I can review the words of many inspired 'others' but only the considerations and decisions of 'self' will be the things I'm held accountable. I don't think "he told me to do it" - even if it comes from the president of the church - will be a good excuse if the actions I take lead me to "become" less than my potential.

My position is.

1. We don't know the reason for the priesthood ban

2. We don't know it wasn't the best thing for the church at the time

3. The lord can and often does give commandments due to our weaknesses that he later rescinds

4. Perhaps sometimes we are not always ready to live a higher law and must live a lower law until we are ready (United Order comes to mind, gather to Utah)

5. Although we can not judge what was right in the past (We don't have all of the information), we can know what to do now.

6. The current revelation does not support the ban.

7. The current prophet may tell us to do things that previous prophets said were wrong, and were wrong for those he presided over

8. previous prophets told their people to do things that were right for them, but wrong for us.

9. Therefore the current prophet is more important the the past prophets

10. I believe the Current prophet will not lead us astray.

11. I believe that was the point of ETBs talk.

1. We don't, but it doesn't appear to have been revelation

2. We don't, but Joseph didn't seem to feel the need to introduce it when they were in far more 'at risk' locations

3. A commandment given to meet the needs of precudiced people, in their weakness? All the way through until the 1970s? The implications that has for other church policies and doctrines is a little unsettling. More likely is it's a policy implemented and maintained because of prejudice

7. So you're admitting that the people living at the time of their living prophet may have been lead astray by him? So therefore a living prophet can say things that are "wrong for those he presides over."

8. I agree, certain things that seem to have been given as revelation have since been either fulfilled (Law of Moses), paused (Consecration/Polygamy) or refuted (Adam-God/Blood Atonement)

9. I agree that the principle of living prophets is important. I agree that living prophets can often speak directly to us, in our day. Having said that, most of our current policies, practices, doctrines and commandments are based on dead prophets' words.

10. And yet at point 7 you've acknowledged that the things that "previous prophets said were wrong, and were wrong for those he presided over." How do you know the current one doesn't have the same ability? You don't believe the living prophet is perfect do you? If he is fallible (which he must be) that means he can't speak perfectly.

11. Perhaps it was. His terms were so categorical that there was little room for ambiguity.

[Danzo]

I Guess number 7 could be clarified to say.

Times change, and one think could be right in one instance and wrong in another

Examples being polygamy: it was right in the past wrong right now (reasons are not entirely clear)

Migration to Utah: it was right in the past, not so much today

Moving to Far West: wrong today, right in the past

Animal Sacrifices: Right in the past, wrong today

Law of Consecration: Right in the past, withdrawn because we weren't ready, but we know we will be asked to live it in the future.

Aaronic Priesthood: Only to sons of Levi in the past, everyone today.

We don't always know the reasons for the change, but just because something has changed, doesn't mean the prophets in the past were leading people astray

Also, there is a difference between things we are asked to do (literally following the direction of the prophet) and doctrine (the why)

On the former, I don't think the prophet will lead the church astray. On the latter, we are mostly in the dark and we will receive further light as we are ready to receive it.

[canard78]

I Guess number 7 could be clarified to say.

Times change, and one think could be right in one instance and wrong in another

Examples being polygamy: it was right in the past wrong right now (reasons are not entirely clear)

Migration to Utah: it was right in the past, not so much today

Moving to Far West: wrong today, right in the past

Animal Sacrifices: Right in the past, wrong today

Law of Consecration: Right in the past, withdrawn because we weren't ready, but we know we will be asked to live it in the future.

Aaronic Priesthood: Only to sons of Levi in the past, everyone today.

We don't always know the reasons for the change, but just because something has changed, doesn't mean the prophets in the past were leading people astray

Also, there is a difference between things we are asked to do (literally following the direction of the prophet) and doctrine (the why)

On the former, I don't think the prophet will lead the church astray. On the latter, we are mostly in the dark and we will receive further light as we are ready to receive it.

So when you said: "The current prophet may tell us to do things that previous prophets said were wrong, and were wrong for those he presided over" you didn't mean that after all? I'm a little perplexed.

We have a fallible prophet who, you suggest, is never actually fallible when acting as one. How is that possible?

[Calm]

. If there is no written evidence of a revelation, no scriptural basis and no acceptance by common consent then there's no evidence that a policy is divinely inspired.

Would you accept a personal witness as evidence? (for you, not for others)

As a side note in this examination: I am curious as to why you (canard) think that David O McKay received a "not yet" from the Lord when asking him about lifting the ban. If it was just a mistake, then why wouldn't God's response have been more like "about time!"

It is that experience that has primarily kept me from settling on an explanation that it was all a mistake that was perpetuated though the traditions and fear of man rather than trusting in the Lord and that the Lord allowed to continue as another way to help his people progress in that if all growth comes through forced feeding so to speak or from the environment and not from an internal searching on how one might become closer to God and to oneness with others, that growth is unbalanced, brittle and can die up quickly if the environment goes harsh. Growth must come from inside even stronger than outside in order to grow a plant or a person that will last though hardships and attacks and accidents etc. (And it could have been a trial for that growth, one which we possibly failed to some extent due to the length of the ban, though the response at the end of it in general would seem to indicate that such wisdom and joy indicates a great move past the prejudices of the past...so perhaps there was a payoff between length and quality.)

Edited June 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Would you accept a personal witness as evidence? (for you, not for others)

As a side note in this examination: I am curious as to why you (canard) think that David O McKay received a "not yet" from the Lord when asking him about lifting the ban. If it was just a mistake, then why wouldn't God's response have been more like "about time!"

It is that experience that has primarily kept me from settling on an explanation that it was all a mistake that was perpetuated though the traditions and fear of man rather than trusting in the Lord and that the Lord allowed to continue as another way to help his people progress in that if all growth comes through forced feeding so to speak or from the environment and not from an internal searching on how one might become closer to God and to oneness with others, that growth is unbalanced, brittle and can die up quickly if the environment goes harsh. Growth must come from inside even stronger than outside in order to grow a plant or a person that will last though hardships and attacks and accidents etc. (And it could have been a trial for that growth, one which we possibly failed to some extent due to the length of the ban, though the response at the end of it in general would seem to indicate that such wisdom and joy indicates a great move past the prejudices of the past...so perhaps there was a payoff between length and quality.)

We discussed this issue thoroughly in three adult education classes. My feeling is that the situation was analogous to the Word of Wisdom which was not made a commandment because the majority of the Church at the time and for decades afterwards would have lost their Temple Recommends. Racism in American was pervasive and persistent throughout America and throughout the Church even in the upper echelons of the leadership. Spencer W. Kimball chastised his brethern for that in one of his books as an Apostle. Had Pres. McKay sought to extend the Priesthood he would have run into very strong opposition in the Quorum of the Twelve. Elder Harold B. Lee had announced that it would be extended over his dead body -- which proved prophetic. What is unfortunate is that the fact of the Priesthood not being granted to the African Blacks was attributed to a defect in the Africans as opposed to a defect in the Whites who dominated the membership of the Church. The Whites were simply not ready for the extention, anymore than the Jews were ready for an extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles under Paul.

[Ahab]

We discussed this issue thoroughly in three adult education classes. My feeling is that the situation was analogous to the Word of Wisdom which was not made a commandment because the majority of the Church at the time and for decades afterwards would have lost their Temple Recommends. Racism in American was pervasive and persistent throughout America and throughout the Church even in the upper echelons of the leadership. Spencer W. Kimball chastised his brethern for that in one of his books as an Apostle. Had Pres. McKay sought to extend the Priesthood he would have run into very strong opposition in the Quorum of the Twelve. Elder Harold B. Lee had announced that it would be extended over his dead body -- which proved prophetic. What is unfortunate is that the fact of the Priesthood not being granted to the African Blacks was attributed to a defect in the Africans as opposed to a defect in the Whites who dominated the membership of the Church. The Whites were simply not ready for the extention, anymore than the Jews were ready for an extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles under Paul.

Exactly, and I'm reminded again of a story told by Abraham Lincoln in that latest movie that came out about him.

A compass, I learnt when I was surveying, it'll... it'll point you True North from where you're standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps and dessert and chasm that you'll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp... What's the use of knowing True North?

[Stone holm]

Exactly, and I'm reminded again of a story told by Abraham Lincoln in that latest movie that came out about him.

A compass, I learnt when I was surveying, it'll... it'll point you True North from where you're standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps and dessert and chasm that you'll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp... What's the use of knowing True North?

I also feel it is disingenious to throw Brigham Young under the bus without accounting for the numerous Presidents of the Church between him and Spencer W. Kimball.