Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[rockpond]

The word "racist" is most often defined as the belief that one race is superior to another. Plenty have said that the ban does/did not mean that blacks were inferior, but simply that they were not extended the priesthood. So without the feeling of superiority between the races they deem the ban as NOT racist.

Ant those that don't think the ban as racist see the article as condemning the racist theories and statements, but that ban itself is not being disavowed.

The article explains that the ban originated in a climate of racial division. That division was based on the belief that those of African descent were inferior (remember, they were bought and sold as property).

[rockpond]

I suspect at this point only the brain dead would argue it wasn't, but the question is whether The Lord for some reason was willing for the racism to continue, and if we believe this is the true Church, then we inevitable reach the conclusion, yes He was otherwise...we reach the conclusion that we had false prophets in our midst. All the Church has really said here is that all the theological explanation spun over the years were false. So for some reason, The Lord felt it was appropriate to allow His Church to be known as a racist organization. Just as today, He is allowing it to be known as a sexist organization. Someday our great great grandchildren will be speculating as to why the Church was allowed to be sexist for so long and will be debating whether certain portions of the Proclamation on the Family were inspired or merely cultural based.

Prophets make mistakes (Uchtdorf said it in October, Holland said it in April). It doesn't mean that they are false prophets.

[canard78]

So do you think God is a racist of sorts? And if you do, how would you attempt to reconcile His racism with being a God of perfect love? Also, if God commanded His ancient earthly leaders to withhold the priesthood from pharaoh's line, why would said leaders be considered racists for simply following orders? Finally, under these divinely ordained circumstances, would you say the only way for the Church leaders to avoid being labeled as racists is for them to disobey God's commandment to withhold the priesthood from some?

 

No, God's not racist.

 

The black africans are not a "lineage" of pharaoh/Cain/Ham/Canaan (whoever). There's a huge diversity of origins. When people were banned it was not based on whether they were of a scripturally prohibited lineage but whether they were of black african origin. Charlemagne's rule means that we're probably all able to trace at least one ancestor back to black africa. It's just not visibly obvious. How diluted does the lineage need to be?

 

Given you can provide scriptural basis for pharaoh's line being withheld the priesthood perhaps you'd like to proffer some scriptural or revealed basis for the black priesthood band. If it really was God's command then I suppose we can't call BY and his successors racist. Merely obedient. So where's "God's command" to withhold the priesthood and temple blessings from black people?

[Brian 2.0]

The article explains that the ban originated in a climate of racial division. That division was based on the belief that those of African descent were inferior (remember, they were bought and sold as property).

Yes. And it was through that racially divided culture that the racist theories came forth for the ban. And the article then disavows the theories.

If the church wanted to disavow the ban... they would have disavowed the ban. It would have taken just a few words.

Instead they rely on this carefully worded article that allows people to play connect-the-dots if they want to say the ban was wrong, while also giving the rest the ability to believe the ban was inspired and just the racist theories are disavowed.

[foster]

Nevermind

Edited December 11, 2013 by foster

[teddyaware]

Apparently, there was a need for the racism. There are some pretty harsh things in the OT. Do you believe that every firstborn in Egypt including the mere babes were evil? How about Jobs family? We have no clue what The Lord needed to have happen in order to make the world turn out like He needs it to make it turn out. What is bad, is when we start ascribing reasons like the idea that a certain race or tribe is inferior to ourselves. That may have had zero credibility, it may have been for some reason altogether different. Why for example did he make the African generally more athletic and musical, why were the European Jews blessed with so many geniuses, why isolate the Ameridians with the resultant lack of immunities, why allow a lunatic to take eugenics to such extremes, why wipe out all but eight members of the human race? We have no real clue, but I suspect there was in fact some cosmic plan, we have to believe that or we wind up questioning God. I have a feeling that there will be people who reject the gospel in these days because of the goodness of their hearts, and those people will wind up being blessed for that rejection in the end.

The wording of the 1978 Official Declaration makes it clear that the banning was from God; that it was foreknown the banning was temporary and would be removed by the Lord Himself when the time was right; that a powerful, unmistakable revelatory experience was needed for the Lord to make it known to the leaders that the time to end the ban had come; that the revelation to end of the banning was given in fulfillment of a promise. I this instance, I will rely upon the word of the Lord to His anointed, as recorded in Official Declaration 2, to inform me as to the particulars of the ban.

Remember, at any time during the duration of the ban the Lord could have broken through to communicate with His servants to let them know the ban was unnecessary and not ordained of Him, if that was the case. But the Lord waited until the year 1978 to reveal the time had finally come to end the ban, and that in fulfillment of a promise and in answer to fervent prayer.

I ask the following question once again: What will you say to the Lord if He reveals to you that he was the one who ordained the modern priesthood ban?

There are some here who passionately decry the treatment of the native Americans by the European settlers, yet the Book of Mormon makes it clear that for some unknown reason the "wrath of God was upon them" as a race, and that's why the were "driven" before the face of those Gentiles who had escaped from European captivity. And although what I'm about to say is extremely politically incorrect, did it ever dawn upon you that perhaps, for some as yet unknown reason, similar to the divine wrath that was upon the Lamanites, the wrath of God was also upon the Africans who were brought to the New World against their will, but that great blessings would follow when the Lord's wrath was finally turned away? And Remember, because He is motivated by perfect love, the Lord's wrath almost always turns out to be a great blessing in disguise: The Lamanites were driven, but they shall be miraculously restored; the Africans were made captive, but they will arise from their captivity, as did the children of Israel, to take their pre-ordained rightful place at the right hand of God.

You yourself said that in His infinite wisdom God allows terrible things to happen, without intervention, so that a greater good can come about. So why not put your rhetorical sword down and purge your quixotic angst, and then be at peace knowing that the Lord of the Universe will do aright, and that His servants did in fact receive a revelation indicating that the day of the Lord's wrath against some was coming to an end. Isn't it better to have faith that the Lord knows how to lead His servants aright, than it is to entertain notions that the leaders of God's kingdom on earth are little better than that funny little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz?

Edited December 11, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

The wording of the 1978 Official Declaration makes it clear that the banning was from God; that it was foreknown the banning was temporary and would be removed by the Lord Himself when the time was right; that a powerful, unmistakable revelatory experience was needed for the Lord to make it known to the leaders that the time to end the ban had come; that the revelation to end of the banning was given in fulfillment of a promise. I this instance, I will rely upon the word of the Lord to His anointed, as recorded in Official Declaration 2, to inform me as to the particulars of the ban.Remember, at any time during the duration of the ban the Lord could have broken through to communicate with His servants to let them know the ban was unnecessary and not ordained of Him, if that was the case. But the Lord waited until the year 1978 to reveal the time had finally come to end the ban, and that in fulfillment of a promise and in answer to fervent prayer.I ask the following question once again: What will you say to the Lord if He reveals to you that he was the one who ordained the modern priesthood ban?There are some here who passionately decry the treatment of the native Americans by the European settlers, yet the Book of Mormon makes it clear that for some unknown reason the "wrath of God was upon them" as a race, and that's why the were "driven" before the face of those Gentiles who had escaped from European captivity. And although what I'm about to say is extremely politically incorrect, did it ever dawn upon you that perhaps, for some as yet unknown reason, similar to the divine wrath that was upon the Lamanites, the wrath of God was also upon the Africans who were brought to the New World against their will, but that great blessings would follow when the Lord's wrath was finally turned away? And Remember, because He is motivated by perfect love, the Lord's wrath almost always turns out to be a great blessing in disguise: The Lamanites were driven, but they shall be miraculously restored; the Africans were made captive, but they will arise from their captivity, as did the children of Israel, to take their pre-ordained rightful place at the right hand of God.You yourself said that in His infinite wisdom God allows terrible things to happen, without intervention, so that a greater good can come about. So why not put your rhetorical sword down and purge your quixotic angst, and then be at peace knowing that the Lord of the Universe will do aright, and that His servants did in fact receive a revelation indicating that the day of the Lord's wrath against some was coming to an end. Isn't it better to have faith that the Lord knows how to lead His servants aright, than it is to entertain notions that the leaders of God's kingdom on earth are little better than that funny little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz?

Not sure I understand this attack. I have said that I think The Lord left the ban in place, which it think is something we all have to acknowledge if we wish to continue to believe He directs this Church. The ban was racist. Just because The Lord condoned it at the time does not change that. I may ask Him why if I haven't figured it out for sure yet by then. My guess is that the Whites were not ready to accept them as brothers, but that is just my guess. That doesn't mean we need to try and whitewash the situation with revisionist history.

[thesometimesaint]

Perhaps you could suggest to your bishop or the executive secretary keeping track for the purpose of giving more people the opportunity.

 

Next time I see him I'll do that.

[thesometimesaint]

I suspect at this point only the brain dead would argue it wasn't, but the question is whether The Lord for some reason was willing for the racism to continue, and if we believe this is the true Church, then we inevitable reach the conclusion, yes He was otherwise...we reach the conclusion that we had false prophets in our midst. All the Church has really said here is that all the theological explanation spun over the years were false. So for some reason, The Lord felt it was appropriate to allow His Church to be known as a racist organization. Just as today, He is allowing it to be known as a sexist organization. Someday our great great grandchildren will be speculating as to why the Church was allowed to be sexist for so long and will be debating whether certain portions of the Proclamation on the Family were inspired or merely cultural based.

 

I didn't marry a black woman. Am I a racist? I didn't marry a black man? Am I sexist? Would imposing those explanations on me make any of them true?

Edited December 11, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

I didn't marry a black woman. Am I a racist? I didn't marry a black man? Am I sexist? Would imposing those explanations on me make any of them true?

 

Not sure I understand this.  No neither make you a racist or a sexist.  However, pushing for the maintenance of or implementing a law which banned inter-racial marriage, would certainly qualify you as a racist.  SSM presents a different issue.  Attempting to shame women into certain roles in society is sexist -- in the much vaunted 50's and early 60's girls were mainly disallowed to play varsity sports, forced to take home economics, etc. etc.  The marriage situation is different.  Our belief structure including the continuation of the seed is so centrally important to our faith and understanding as to how the hereafter works, that we can never embrace it without very major changes in doctrine.  That is not true of say ordaining women in some fashion or putting women in significant leadership roles.  But sex itself, is tied to our doctrine of the continuation of the seed -- and in that respect, Boyd K Packer is right boys are boys, and girls are girls -- going beyond that to assign roles and limit opportunities is probably culturally driven.  Why the Lord is allowing that?  Have no idea, and I think there are a lot of people who have not idea -- difference is they are spinning all kinds of stuff which they are implying is emanating from the Lord.  Maybe it is, but I rather doubt it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't necessarily believe the recent statement by the Church on the priesthood ban indicates the

previously stated possible reasons for the ban are false. The statement is simply saying there isn't

information available to avow for the truthfulness and accuracy of the previous stated

possible explanations.

No it does not state that. It doesn't say it doesn't have the information to avow the past theories. It says "disavow." Disavow in plain english means: To disclaim knowledge of, responsibility for, or association with. The church no longer wants to be associated with those statements any more. How could they make this more clear?

 

One of the things that I find remarkable when examining this subject is how many of those who opine on the matter so rarely look to scripture to inform their opinions. If a given individual is a believing

and knowledgeable Latter-day Saint, there should be no question but that they should acknowledge there is scriptural precedent for God withholding priesthood ordination to some based on lineage, as the

following verses from the Book of Abraham clearly and unambiguously indicate:

"26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all

his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father,

who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as

pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,

notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led

away by their idolatry;" (Abraham 1)

Now there is the precedent. Yet there are some who carry on as if this was some sort of new-fangled

idea, made up out of whole cloth by President Brigham Young. If God withheld the blessing

of holding the priesthood to some of His children in the past, based on lineage, why is it so difficult

to believe a priesthood ban could be imposed by that same God in our day? Especially

in the dispensation of the fullness of times when all things would be restored.

The only answer I can come up with is that some fear the judgment of the world in our politically

correct age. They morbidly fear the unpleasant possibility that the intellectual luminaries of this

fallen world's version of a high priesthood, even those who occupy the large and spacious building,

are going to mock and point accusing fingers at them for believing such "superstitious nonsense" is

even remotely possible in the post modern age. Perhaps it's semi-acceptable to believe the "primitive

troglodytes" of Abraham's day could believe in a priesthood ban based on lineage, but

heaven forbid, don't dare entertain the absurd notion that a similar priesthood ban

could be enforced in our own day! After all, what will the people think? Isaiah warned the Lord's people in his day not to worry about what the unbelievers think about them

and their unpopular doctrines:

In the 2000 word essay on the priesthood ban, the article spends a full 25% describing the racial culture of America as a backdrop to the ban. How many words did you see in their on linage? Why didn't the church mention Abraham? Why didn't the church mention the tribe of Levi? Why didn't the church mention the fact that Jesus only ministered to the Jews? Could it be that as shown on this thread, these facts were irrelevant? Or perhaps as you say the church "fears the judgment of the world in our politically correct age."

 

Please compare the priesthood ban article to the plural marriage article. Though the article is much shorter (only 600 words) it makes sure to give relevant biblical presidents. Also note that in contrast to Brigham Young "publicly announcing the ban" the much shorter plural marriage article makes sure to mention that "God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831." This is despite the fact that we don't have any documentation for this revelation.

 

So my last question to all those that are defending the ban as divine, and those that keep citing irrelevant biblical precedent:

Why did the church in an article <1/3 the size of the priesthood article mention polygamy's divine origins, and its biblical precedents, but fail to do so in the case of the priesthood ban (in a much more thorough article)? Why did they instead talk about (for 500 words no less - almost the length of the entire plural marriage article) the racial culture that the ban was born in? 

Edited December 11, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

And although what I'm about to say is extremely politically incorrect, did it ever dawn upon you that perhaps, for some as yet unknown reason, similar to the divine wrath that was upon the Lamanites, the wrath of God was also upon the Africans who were brought to the New World against their will, but that great blessings would follow when the Lord's wrath was finally turned away? And Remember, because He is motivated by perfect love, the Lord's wrath almost always turns out to be a great blessing in disguise: The Lamanites were driven, but they shall be miraculously restored; the Africans were made captive, but they will arise from their captivity, as did the children of Israel, to take their pre-ordained rightful place at the right hand of God.

 

So the systematic splitting up of families, raping of women, forced servitude, regular beatings were all blessings in disguise? Glad I don't believe in your God. My God and my church "unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

[thesometimesaint]

No it does not state that. It doesn't say it doesn't have the information to avow the past theories. It says "disavow." Disavow in plain english means: To disclaim knowledge of, responsibility for, or association with. The church no longer wants to be associated with those statements any more. How could they make this more clear?

 

In the 2000 word essay on the priesthood ban, the article spends a full 25% describing the racial culture of America as a backdrop to the ban. How many words did you see in their on linage? Why didn't the church mention Abraham? Why didn't the church mention the tribe of Levi? Why didn't the church mention the fact that Jesus only ministered to the Jews? Could it be that as shown on this thread, these facts were irrelevant? Or perhaps as you say the church "fears the judgment of the world in our politically correct age."

 

Please compare the priesthood ban article to the plural marriage article. Though the article is much shorter (only 600 words) it makes sure to give relevant biblical presidents. Also note that in contrast to Brigham Young "publicly announcing the ban" the much shorter plural marriage article makes sure to mention that "God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831." This is despite the fact that we don't have any documentation for this revelation.

 

So my last question to all those that are defending the ban as divine, and those that keep citing irrelevant biblical precedent:

Why did the church in an article <1/3 the size of the priesthood article mention polygamy's divine origins, and its biblical precedents, but fail to do so in the case of the priesthood ban (in a much more thorough article)? Why did they instead talk about (for 500 words no less - almost the length of the entire plural marriage article) the racial culture that the ban was born in? 

 

Argument from silence.

[thesometimesaint]

So the systematic splitting up of families, raping of women, forced servitude, regular beatings were all blessings in disguise? Glad I don't believe in your God. My God and my church "unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

I would not say those are blessings, but that God allows those evil acts, along with others, because of the higher law of Agency.

[CV75]

This also applies to those who attack those who ask questions or present different viewpoints that are "contrary to the leadership".  I don't know why you think this only applies to the other guy.

I don't think that, of course... The issue came up from one persepctive, and I addressed that persepctive. Then I adressed the same issue from the other persepctive. My posts apply to contention, disputation and stirring up teh hearst of men to anger (according to the scripture I cited), so I'm not sure why anyone would zero in on only one aspect.

[Tacenda]

http://fox13now.com/2013/12/10/lds-church-releases-statement-on-race/

 

Above is the only newscast that I know about, that showed the new statement from the church in Utah I believe, please correct if wrong.  

 

Also, below are some quotes put on the web in response to the church disavowing the Priesthood Ban.  From antis, but they must be true they have references.  Some I'd never heard before.  I didn't know that JS might be a racist.  I always thought because he ordained a black man that he didn't think like that.  But I was wrong apparently.  I also didn't know they brought slaves to Utah and had slavery there.    

 

“For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every should of them should repent.... Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller’s soap every day, they cannot wash away God’s mark.”

- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, v. 14, p. 418

 

“We feel it to be our duty to define our position in relation to the subject of slavery. There are several men in the valley of the Salt Lake from the Southern States, who have their slaves with them.”

- Apostle Orson Hyde, Millennial Star, 1851, p. 63

 

 

“The Negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom [i.e., godhood].”

- Apostle George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1939, p. 58

 

 

“There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.”

- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66

 

 

“There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we come here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.”

- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, p. 61

 

"For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the bareness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.”

- Pearl of Great Price, Mormon scripture, Book of Moses 7:8

 

“I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.... the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible.... And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it [slavery] remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude.”

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 2, p. 438

 

“Thirteenth – ‘Are the Mormons abolitionists?’ No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free.”

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v.3, p. 29
 

[thesometimesaint]

I've read far worse, and far better by those same men. So it really is a mixed bag. Were there racists in the Church, including leadership? No doubt about it. Are there racist today in the Church? Yes there are. They have a serious need to repentance.

 

BTW Here is something JS Jr. also said about the Negro. Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.

[thesometimesaint]

I've read far worse, and far better by those same men. So it really is a mixed bag. Were there racists in the Church, including leadership? No doubt about it. Are there racist today in the Church? Yes there are. They have a serious need to repentance.

 

BTW Here is something JS Jr. also said about the Negro. Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.

[Tacenda]

I've read far worse, and far better by those same men. So it really is a mixed bag. Were there racists in the Church, including leadership? No doubt about it. Are there racist today in the Church? Yes there are. They have a serious need to repentance.

 

BTW Here is something JS Jr. also said about the Negro. Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.

Yes, I knew I'd read things like this, maybe why I never thought JS could be a racist.  I see that he had respect for individuals no matter their color, thanks for the quote.  He definitely was a product of his environment along with the other racist leaders.  You're right there are many to this day that are, it's their upbringing.  I have had some racists in my family and extended family.  I'm sure we all have. 

 

I think the Lord may well be testing all of us, first the color of the skin and now gay people.         

[canard78]

The wording of the 1978 Official Declaration makes it clear that the banning was from God; that it was foreknown the banning was temporary and would be removed by the Lord Himself when the time was right; that a powerful, unmistakable revelatory experience was needed for the Lord to make it known to the leaders that the time to end the ban had come; that the revelation to end of the banning was given in fulfillment of a promise. I this instance, I will rely upon the word of the Lord to His anointed, as recorded in Official Declaration 2, to inform me as to the particulars of the ban.

Remember, at any time during the duration of the ban the Lord could have broken through to communicate with His servants to let them know the ban was unnecessary and not ordained of Him, if that was the case. But the Lord waited until the year 1978 to reveal the time had finally come to end the ban, and that in fulfillment of a promise and in answer to fervent prayer.

I ask the following question once again: What will you say to the Lord if He reveals to you that he was the one who ordained the modern priesthood ban?

There are some here who passionately decry the treatment of the native Americans by the European settlers, yet the Book of Mormon makes it clear that for some unknown reason the "wrath of God was upon them" as a race, and that's why the were "driven" before the face of those Gentiles who had escaped from European captivity. And although what I'm about to say is extremely politically incorrect, did it ever dawn upon you that perhaps, for some as yet unknown reason, similar to the divine wrath that was upon the Lamanites, the wrath of God was also upon the Africans who were brought to the New World against their will, but that great blessings would follow when the Lord's wrath was finally turned away? And Remember, because He is motivated by perfect love, the Lord's wrath almost always turns out to be a great blessing in disguise: The Lamanites were driven, but they shall be miraculously restored; the Africans were made captive, but they will arise from their captivity, as did the children of Israel, to take their pre-ordained rightful place at the right hand of God.

You yourself said that in His infinite wisdom God allows terrible things to happen, without intervention, so that a greater good can come about. So why not put your rhetorical sword down and purge your quixotic angst, and then be at peace knowing that the Lord of the Universe will do aright, and that His servants did in fact receive a revelation indicating that the day of the Lord's wrath against some was coming to an end. Isn't it better to have faith that the Lord knows how to lead His servants aright, than it is to entertain notions that the leaders of God's kingdom on earth are little better than that funny little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz?

 

The wording of OD2 is not revelation. It's a statement to say they've had a revelation to end the ban. 

 

I've just read through it and the only thing I can see in is that prophets promised the day would come when the ban was overturned. Many of these would be the same prophets that gave erroneous reasons for the origins of the ban, so why does that point towards the ban being from God.

 

If this really the best you can do?

 

I asked for some evidence of divine origin and the best you have is a prepared statement 126 years after the ban was officially announced?

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, I knew I'd read things like this, maybe why I never thought JS could be a racist.  I see that he had respect for individuals no matter their color, thanks for the quote.  He definitely was a product of his environment along with the other racist leaders.  You're right there are many to this day that are, it's their upbringing.  I have had some racists in my family and extended family.  I'm sure we all have. 

 

I think the Lord may well be testing all of us, first the color of the skin and now gay people.         

 

That is always the challenge to love God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength and the second is like unto it to love our neighbors like ourselves.

[Thinking]

This announcement weakens the LDS claim to divine revelation IMO. If the priesthood ban was a mistake, then multiple prophets were in error. Why would the Lord allow for such an error to linger for so long?

[jkwilliams]

This announcement weakens the LDS claim to divine revelation IMO. If the priesthood ban was a mistake, then multiple prophets were in error. Why would the Lord allow for such an error to linger for so long?

 

As far as I can see, there's nothing in the statement about the ban being a mistake. That's why the rationalizations from members will keep coming, and the issue is unlikely to be put to bed.

[BCSpace]

This announcement weakens the LDS claim to divine revelation IMO. If the priesthood ban was a mistake, then multiple prophets were in error. Why would the Lord allow for such an error to linger for so long?

 

The Church has somewhat of an advantage here in that we've never accepted the notion that prophets can't have their own opinions or that their mouths or pens are controlled by God 24/7. 

 

We also have the scriptures and so there is indeed something to the ban and the 'OT explanation' as well (that in times past the priesthood was given only to those of certain lineage) which has been panned on this board remains in effect as it's in at least if not more of our current manuals.

 

I think the scriptures, notably the BoM verses which is being addressed in another thread, can be explained by context.  Those theories and beliefs which have been disavowed refer only to the recent ban and not the BoM verses.

 

In addition, the Church has not removed the status of prophecy and inspiration from the ban, only those particular theories and beliefs.  Rather it continues to emphasize BY's status as a prophet in relation to that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As far as I can see, there's nothing in the statement about the ban being a mistake.

I am confused on why that even matters.