Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[Senator]

I do not know if your post should be label deceitful or not, but something tells me you are aware of instances where the ban was labeled of Divine Origin.  On Fairmormon one can find and read the Divine Orgin of the Ban. In the paper by Edward Kimball one can find the Divine origin of the ban. What we do know is that in 1947, 1949, 1969, and unknown year(s) of statement(s) David O. McKay the ban is referred to as being of Gods will and direction. I am confident you know of these sources which speak of the Divine origin. What I am unsure about is why or how you would consciously deny they exist. (Incidently the Church also claimed Jospeh Smith did it, which again is a reference found on Fairmormon; but I am sure you know that.)

 

THEN WHY WON"T THE CHURCH COME STRAIGHT OUT AND SAY THAT?

[Thinking]

We seem to always deal with these big issues long after the rest of the world has has overcome such issues.

 

Reactionary Revelation

[Stone holm]

Reactionary Revelation

What were the other big issues?

[DBMormon]

What were the other big issues?

Polygamy only after the Govt threatens us

Dealing with people leaving over internet information - they adjust only after seeing the writing on the wall

Women praying in Conference after ordain women got started

Ban done away after the civil rights movement

missionaries using facebook and blogs long after church growth lulls and facebook becomes huge

first they told members and ward no individual internet church sites and then a few years later changed their mind at least partially.

should I go on?

[teddyaware]

THEN WHY WON"T THE CHURCH COME STRAIGHT OUT AND SAY THAT?

Did it ever dawn upon you that if God fully disclosed His reasons for the priesthood ban you couldn't handle the truth? I'm going to now repost (below) something I recently posted on another thread that elaborates on the idea that the truth can be a real turnoff for those who are unprepared to receive it...

'Personally, I believe there have been repeated periods throughout the history of the Lord's kingdom on earth when the people of His Church quite simply could not handle the actual truth. During these periods of limited receptivity to the "strong meat" of the gospel, the leaders tailor the more controversial portions of the gospel message in such a manner as to make these difficult doctrines more intellectually palatable and spiritually digestible -- or they simply elect to leave some controversial things alone. It is the leader's solemn responsibility to be sure that they impart eternal truth only insofar as the members of the Church are able to properly ingest and digest what they are taught. Alma the Younger taught the Church of his day this sacred principle:

"9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the

mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only

according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the

heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and

he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given

unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full." (Alma 12)

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the truth of God can be a dangerous and destructive thing for

those who are unprepared to receive it. On this point, Parley Parker Pratt tells us of the following

highly instructive incident in Church history: The Prophet Joseph said:

“'Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up

and kill me.’ Brother Brigham arose and said, ‘Don’t tell me anything that I can’t bear, for I don’t want to apostatize.’” (As recalled by Parley P. Pratt in Millennial Star 55 [sept. 4 1893]: 585.)

A perfect example in our day of the members of the Church apparently becoming less and less able to

ingest the meat of the gospel can be found in the changes made to the temple endowment that occurred in

the 1980's. I remember immediately after attending an endowment session for the first time just after

the changes were made, asking the temple president if I could to speak with him privately in his

office. To him I expressed my great sorrow and disappointment that some wonderful sacred things had

been withdrawn from the ceremony, great things that would ultimately make the symbolic meaning of the

endowment ordinance more difficult to understand and interpret. He told me I was the only individual

who ever had anything negative to say to him -- or to anyone else in authority for that matter -- about the truncations made to the ceremony. But said I, how can that be? Who would be glad that the Lord had just withdrawn from the earth, and back into heaven, so much impactful sacred truth? He had nothing further to say. In retrospect, I now realize the Lord had to withdraw those sacred things back into the hidden precincts of heaven because the world, and even the Church, was changing.

The fact is that political correctness has so affected the world, and even many active and otherwise

valiant members of the Church, that much of the truth of God can no longer be openly told. We have

become like unto the Hebrews of the meridian apostolic church, to whom the Apostle Paul said the

following:

"12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the

first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong

meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Hebrews 5)

In reality, it is not the doctrine that actually changes, but it is the ability of the Church members to receive deeper truth without going apostate that changes. If the Prophet Joseph Smith had to withhold much of the truth of the gospel in order to preserve the strength of the Church and prevent wholesale apostasy, why should it be any different in our day?

"114 But great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom which he

showed unto us, which surpass all understanding in glory, and in might, and in dominion;

115 Which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the Spirit, and are not lawful for

man to utter;

116 Neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power

of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him, and purify themselves before him;

117 To whom he grants this privilege of seeing and knowing for themselves;" (D&C 76)'

So again I ask: Did it ever dawn on you that there many truths the members of the Church, especially the many wavering, outraged or disgruntled members, who are unprepared to receive the truth?

Edited December 13, 2013 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

I bowed out of this thread several pages ago so maybe this has been covered - But if we can falsely believe that the theories behind the ban were Doctrine, teach it is Doctrine and have the First Presidency sign off that it is Doctrine (1947 letter to Dr. Lowery Nelson and 1949 1st Pres Letter)

And we have the First Presidency stating interracial marriage being Sin is Doctrine and saying the entire leadership believes and sustains this.

 

With that what guarantee do I have that they have it right on LGBT issues and Women and Priesthood?  Why if the above can change can't these issues?  If God allows people to be demeaned and belittled through racist views that are put forth as his views by his true and living Church, how do we know when the Church members can count on the Church to get it right? 

 

(Granted, I am little more frustrated and agitated this week for lots of reasons so yes my posts over the past few days reflect a little of that)  It just seems like we  often are playing behind the 8-ball.  We seem to always deal with these big issues long after the rest of the world has has overcome such issues.

I fear on issues like this it is not a simple be quiet and wait on God as unfortunately if we are wrong, and while we are wrong if we are, people get hurt, and many awful things happen that affect people deeply and it often results in abuse, isolation, depression, damage to family relationships, and sometimes worse.

 

Should the brethren rather then defend the current positions actually ask God for clarification or for insight if there can be a change on other issues that hurt and offend others in real ways? and I acknowledge that possibly they are doing this already

 

 

the world is hardly out of the woods when it comes to racism, the KKK is still around. Violence against women, child abuse, rape, war, corruption, are all still with us

Edited December 13, 2013 by Duncan

[juliann]

I do not know if your post should be label deceitful or not, but something tells me you are aware of instances where the ban was labeled of Divine Origin.  On Fairmormon one can find and read the Divine Orgin of the Ban. In the paper by Edward Kimball one can find the Divine origin of the ban. What we do know is that in 1947, 1949, 1969, and unknown year(s) of statement(s) David O. McKay the ban is referred to as being of Gods will and direction. I am confident you know of these sources which speak of the Divine origin. What I am unsure about is why or how you would consciously deny they exist. (Incidently the Church also claimed Jospeh Smith did it, which again is a reference found on Fairmormon; but I am sure you know that.)

Well, the church is waiting for your call!  How embarrassing that they have come and and said they don't know how the ban originated. What a revelation it will be for them to discover what you know.

[juliann]

 

So again I ask: Did it ever dawn on you that there many truths the members of the Church, especially the many wavering, outraged or disgruntled members, who are unprepared to receive the truth?

 

 

Don't fall off that Ramp

 

[juliann]

 

 

With that what guarantee do I have that they have it right on LGBT issues and Women and Priesthood?  Why if the above can change can't these issues?  If God allows people to be demeaned and belittled through racist views that are put forth as his views by his true and living Church, how do we know when the Church members can count on the Church to get it right? 

 

Maybe the lesson is that spiritual preparedness requires we start getting our own confirmations, just like they say.  Maybe this isn't about "the church" as much as it is about us.

[Thinking]

Polygamy only after the Govt threatens us

Dealing with people leaving over internet information - they adjust only after seeing the writing on the wall

Women praying in Conference after ordain women got started

Ban done away after the civil rights movement

missionaries using facebook and blogs long after church growth lulls and facebook becomes huge

first they told members and ward no individual internet church sites and then a few years later changed their mind at least partially.

should I go on?

 

Don't forget the change in the BoM intro to among the ancestors from principal ancestors after the DNA controversy.

[foster]

Well, the church is waiting for your call!  How embarrassing that they have come and and said they don't know how the ban originated. What a revelation it will be for them to discover what you know.

 

I'll take your little snark and misdirection as your admission that you know of and are aware of the statements in the 1947, 1949, and 1969 letters from the First Presidency (copies of the 1949 and 1969 letters can be found on Fairmormon; but you know that don't you)  and the specific statement(s) from David O. McKay.

 

Edited December 13, 2013 by foster

[Calm]

I'll take your little snark and misdirection as your admission that you know of and are aware of the statements in the 1947, 1949, and 1969 letters from the First Presidency (copies of the 1949 and 1969 letters can be found on Fairmormon; but you know that don't you)  and the specific statement(s) from David O. McKay.

 

And yet you don't address the fact that the Church uses the term "policy", not doctrine throughout the Race and the Priesthood article to describe the ban.

[Calm]

Maybe the lesson is that spiritual preparedness requires we start getting our own confirmations, just like they say.  Maybe this isn't about "the church" as much as it is about us.

I think too many of us view the Church as a nursemaid...why wouldn't we get milk if we expect to be fed by others instead of feeding ourselves.

 

Something that pops into my head on occasion when this topic comes up....

 

 

 

Seymour is the perfect image here of an elder's quorum president, don't you think?

 

My husband made a great point tonight when I was discussing this with him.  He sees the meat of the gospel as service, service....going out and living what we have learned...is what turns milk into something with substance, makes the words we hear into the Word of the Living God.  We see through service how the Atonement works, how the Gospel changes lives, how revelation continues to unfold God's Kingdom here on earth.

 

If we want wisdom, we must ask for it...and we must ask it of God:

 

 

 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.  But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/1?lang=eng

 

But hearing the word isn't enough:

 

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.  For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:   For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.  But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein,he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

 

Which culminates in the ultimate lesson:

 

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction,and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Religion isn't sitting in class and being fed great wisdoms from the words of prophets according to James.  It is going out and doing.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm fully aware that men(women), including leaders of the Church, have said some cringe worthy racist statements. I saw first hand the pain these statements have induced in prospective members and members alike. The ban on our negro brothers and sisters from the wonderful Temple experience disturbed me to the point I almost didn't join the Church. I feel nothing but empathy for the victims of them and nothing but shame for those whom were members and repeated such hurtful things. No man-made justification is acceptable. I don't believe God is a racist, and emphatically reject such arguments. The only logical conclusion I am able to figure out is that while the various bans originated with God(For his own purposes). It is the rationalizations(sometimes made with good intent) that were the mistakes of men(women). I certainly don't know why God put them in place. So other than acknowledging they existed all I can say I/we don't know. Which is real close to what the Church just said.

Edited December 13, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[foster]

And yet you don't address the fact that the Church uses the term "policy", not doctrine throughout the Race and the Priesthood article to describe the ban.

 

And yet, I have not engaged in diversionary ploys designed to misdirect the reader or made false statements, as others have.

[foster]

 I certainly don't know why God put them in place. So other than acknowledging they existed all I can say I/we don't know. Which is real close to what the Church just said.

 

Not knowing why God put it in place has been the posistion of the Church for since the earliest recorded Official statements on the matter.

[Stone holm]

Not knowing why God put it in place has been the posistion of the Church for since the earliest recorded Official statements on the matter.

Not true, previously false explanations were given

[Senator]

Not true, previously false explanations were given

 

And also, because it was the command of God.

[David T]

Not knowing why God put it in place has been the posistion of the Church for since the earliest recorded Official statements on the matter.

In the very talk where BY announced and initiated the ban, he gave an explicit explanation for it.

Edited December 13, 2013 by David T

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the truth of God can be a dangerous and destructive thing for

those who are unprepared to receive it. On this point, Parley Parker Pratt tells us of the following

highly instructive incident in Church history: The Prophet Joseph said:

“'Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up

and kill me.’ Brother Brigham arose and said, ‘Don’t tell me anything that I can’t bear, for I don’t want to apostatize.’” (As recalled by Parley P. Pratt in Millennial Star 55 [sept. 4 1893]: 585.)

<snip>

In reality, it is not the doctrine that actually changes, but it is the ability of the Church members to receive deeper truth without going apostate that changes. If the Prophet Joseph Smith had to withhold much of the truth of the gospel in order to preserve the strength of the Church and prevent wholesale apostasy, why should it be any different in our day?

So again I ask: Did it ever dawn on you that there many truths the members of the Church, especially the many wavering, outraged or disgruntled members, who are unprepared to receive the truth?

 

Did it ever occur to you that you have this exactly backwards? That the truths that the Church was unready to hear was that Blacks are exactly equal to whites? That God really is no respector of persons and all are alike unto him?  What if one of the truths that Joseph had to hold back was gay marriage? Can you imagine anything more likely to cause the saints to rise up and slay him than that? Are you prepared to receive all the truth the Lord has in store for you?

 

(See this works both ways...)

[omni]

Did it ever dawn upon you that if God fully disclosed His reasons for the priesthood ban you couldn't handle the truth? I'm going to now repost (below) something I recently posted on another thread that elaborates on the idea that the truth can be a real turnoff for those who are unprepared to receive it...

'Personally, I believe there have been repeated periods throughout the history of the Lord's kingdom on earth when the people of His Church quite simply could not handle the actual truth. During these periods of limited receptivity to the "strong meat" of the gospel, the leaders tailor the more controversial portions of the gospel message in such a manner as to make these difficult doctrines more intellectually palatable and spiritually digestible -- or they simply elect to leave some controversial things alone. It is the leader's solemn responsibility to be sure that they impart eternal truth only insofar as the members of the Church are able to properly ingest and digest what they are taught. Alma the Younger taught the Church of his day this sacred principle:

 

 

Are you insinuating that the brethren know the reason for the ban (lineage), but are instead claiming they don't know because we "can't handle the truth"?  Wouldn't this be considered lying?

[thesometimesaint]

Are you insinuating that the brethren know the reason for the ban (lineage), but are instead claiming they don't know because we "can't handle the truth"?  Wouldn't this be considered lying?

 

I would consider that lying by omission.

[canard78]

I do not know if your post should be label deceitful or not, but something tells me you are aware of instances where the ban was labeled of Divine Origin.  On Fairmormon one can find and read the Divine Orgin of the Ban. In the paper by Edward Kimball one can find the Divine origin of the ban. What we do know is that in 1947, 1949, 1969, and unknown year(s) of statement(s) David O. McKay the ban is referred to as being of Gods will and direction. I am confident you know of these sources which speak of the Divine origin. What I am unsure about is why or how you would consciously deny they exist. (Incidently the Church also claimed Jospeh Smith did it, which again is a reference found on Fairmormon; but I am sure you know that.)

 

All of which are nearly 100+ years after it had been in place. Where is the claim of a divine origin in 1852?

[thesometimesaint]

That Ban was by BY whom stated his reason(s) for it. The Church just rejects those reason(s). Not that God hasn't put bans in place(which he obviously did).

[canard78]

Not knowing why God put it in place has been the posistion of the Church for since the earliest recorded Official statements on the matter.

 

Can you provide a quote from Brigham Young says he doesn't know why the ban was in place? Given he instigated.