Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

BY did give his reason(s). Those reason(s) have been rejected by the Church.

[canard78]

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).

 

What's obvious about it?

[canard78]

BY did give his reason(s). Those reason(s) have been rejected by the Church.

 

Yep. And he also never said he had received revelation to instigate the ban.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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).

 

What's obvious about it?

I agree. What is obvious about previous bans? People keep talking about Levi. We do realize that most Old Testament prophets were not of the tribe of Levi right? We know that Lehi and his descendants were not of the tribe of Levi and yet had the priesthood. We have these verses from the book of Mormon:

 

For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

This would seem to imply that there are other peoples out there getting God's word presumably with the priesthood.  We know of people outside the Abraham tradition in the bible with the priesthood - Jethro and Melchizedek. Even with your typical Jews, not having the priesthood did not limit them from receiving any ordinances. Basically the tribe of Levi were the set apart temple workers of the day. 

 

This comparison doesn't work and I'd suggest we follow the church's lead and stop using it.

Edited December 13, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Stone holm]

What's obvious about it?

 

It seems pretty much obvious to me that if the Lord wanted the ban lifted, He would have said so before He did.  Any other conclusion, leaves us with the concept that the Lord was telling the Prophet to lift it and the Prophets weren't listening.  Unless, you are of the opinion that the Lord doesn't pay any attention to what His Church is doing, which seem untenable to me.

[canard78]

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?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It seems pretty much obvious to me that if the Lord wanted the ban lifted, He would have said so before He did.  Any other conclusion, leaves us with the concept that the Lord was telling the Prophet to lift it and the Prophets weren't listening.  Unless, you are of the opinion that the Lord doesn't pay any attention to what His Church is doing, which seem untenable to me.

So you disagree with President Kimball when he said:

Revelations will probably never come unless they are desired. I think few people receive revelations while lounging on the couch or while playing cards or while relaxing. I believe most revelations would come when a man is on his tip toes, reaching as high as he can for something which he knows he needs, and then there bursts upon him the answer to his problems

[Stone holm]

So you disagree with President Kimball when he said:

Well, am not necessarily going to disagree with the idea that say HBL never bothered to ask, but I try to give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt when it comes to praying about important issues. But you may be right that some Prophets may spend too much time in their own cultural bubble, I just like to at least pretend notorious go down that road too often.

[canard78]

It seems pretty much obvious to me that if the Lord wanted the ban lifted, He would have said so before He did. Any other conclusion, leaves us with the concept that the Lord was telling the Prophet to lift it and the Prophets weren't listening. Unless, you are of the opinion that the Lord doesn't pay any attention to what His Church is doing, which seem untenable to me.

You're assuming the Prophets were asking. The 1947 letter says it's a doctrine "never questioned." If you never question it you might never hear anything.

President Kimball said this (urroner already shared it, but it's worth repeating)

Revelations will probably never come unless they are desired. I think few people receive revelations while lounging on the couch or while playing cards or while relaxing. I believe most revelations would come when a man is on his tip toes, reaching as high as he can for something which he knows he needs, and then there bursts upon him the answer to his problems.

Edit:sorry, it was SeekingUnderstanding who first shared it, and again a few posts back. It's worth repeating Edited December 14, 2013 by canard78

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Well, am not necessarily going to disagree with the idea that say HBL never bothered to ask, but I try to give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt when it comes to praying about important issues. But you may be right that some Prophets may spend too much time in their own cultural bubble, I just like to at least pretend notorious go down that road too often.

 

You'll note that President Kimball uses the word "desired." I don't think it is enough to just ask.  I think you have to be open to it and desire it. President Kimball spent years preparing both himself and the 12 for that revelation. He wanted it.

Edited December 13, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[thesometimesaint]

I agree. What is obvious about previous bans? People keep talking about Levi. We do realize that most Old Testament prophets were not of the tribe of Levi right? We know that Lehi and his descendants were not of the tribe of Levi and yet had the priesthood. We have these verses from the book of Mormon:

 

This would seem to imply that there are other peoples out there getting God's word presumably with the priesthood.  We know of people outside the Abraham tradition in the bible with the priesthood - Jethro and Melchizedek. Even with your typical Jews, not having the priesthood did not limit them from receiving any ordinances. Basically the tribe of Levi were the set apart temple workers of the day. 

 

This comparison doesn't work and I'd suggest we follow the church's lead and stop using it.

 

The obvious thing is that they existed.

 

I never said they were all of the tribe of Levi. Just that at one time only the first born son of a High Priest in the Tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood. The entire nation of Israel benefited from that arrangement. It wasn't until later that the Priesthood was extended to the male Jews, and yes women did provide a valuable function in the Temple, they just didn't hold the Priesthood.

 

Moreover it was until AFTER the Resurrection of Christ that the Gospel was preached to the non Jews. See: Judaizers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers

 

To this day women in the Church are declined the Priesthood. So far for his own reason(s) God had refused to tell us why.

[juliann]

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?

 

 

  That is such a perfect visual.  Seymour could be any of the leadership that we expect to do all the work for us.  Here is a good blog on our self-destructive need for uniformity and easy answers.  http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/12/the-old-testament-scripture-apostles-the-priesthood-ban-and-theological-diversity-calibrating-our-expectations/

The expectations we bring to reading scripture can radically affect our reading, our faith, and our communities. One frequent assumption, traditional in many religions, is that revelation (and scripture, as a subset of revelation) must be monolithic, unified, in harmony, univocal, internally consistent. This is not the case, and it is not an accident.

 

[Brian 2.0]

You'll note that President Kimball uses the word "desired." I don't think it is enough to just ask. I think you have to be open to it and desire it. President Kimball spent years preparing both himself and the 12 for that revelation. He wanted it.

So we have to wait for a prophet to get his desires in line with God's desires before God says what His desires are? Who's really leading the church in that scenario?

This also sounds a lot like confirmation bias. You get the answer you want to get.

[juliann]

So we have to wait for a prophet to get his desires in line with God's desires before God says what His desires are? Who's really leading the church in that scenario?

 

This is a very good panel, listen to Marvin Perkin's summation at the last few minutes for a good answer to that.  http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57256465-80/tribtalk-church-com-mormon.html.csp

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So we have to wait for a prophet to get his desires in line with God's desires before God says what His desires are? Who's really leading the church in that scenario?

This also sounds a lot like confirmation bias. You get the answer you want to get.

Who's leading the church? I'd say good but flawed men imperfectly seeking God's will looking through a glass darkly. Ymmv

[Brian 2.0]

Who's leading the church? I'd say good but flawed men imperfectly seeking God's will looking through a glass darkly. Ymmv

But if the prophets desires need to line up with God's to get a confirmation then what else would we be "waiting" for?

Could God want women to get the Priesthood but he's just waiting for a prophet who desires the same?

[Brian 2.0]

This is a very good panel, listen to Marvin Perkin's summation at the last few minutes for a good answer to that. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57256465-80/tribtalk-church-com-mormon.html.csp

I'll have a listen. Thanks for the link.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But if the prophets desires need to line up with God's to get a confirmation then what else would we be "waiting" for?

Could God want women to get the Priesthood but he's just waiting for a prophet who desires the same?

In my opinion yes (even likely).  But I'm about as heterodox a believer as they come.  Again, it was Pres. Kimball that said revelation had to be reached for and desired. I am just putting my own heretical spin on it.

[canard78]

Well, am not necessarily going to disagree with the idea that say HBL never bothered to ask, but I try to give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt when it comes to praying about important issues. But you may be right that some Prophets may spend too much time in their own cultural bubble, I just like to at least pretend notorious go down that road too often.

Spencer W. Kimball got unanimous support that the ban could/should be lifted before he asked the quorum to seek a revelation to lift it. Elder Packer said a single dissenting voice would have stopped Pres. Kimball from even taken the question to the prayer stage.

Up to that point there are several examples of indivoduals in the quorum not seeking/desiring a change. Read Edward Kimballs article (linked to from the church one, I've already quoted extensively from it in this thread). Also read the personal views of Elder Mark E. Petersen and Elder Delbert Stapley. Both of whom were not present for the deliberations nor prayer seeking a revelation and were only asked to endorse the change after the rest of the quorum told them they had already had a revelation. There's not even evidence they were asked to have their own personal revelation on it, just to endorse what everyone else had first desired and then had spiritual confirmation of.

[canard78]

So we have to wait for a prophet to get his desires in line with God's desires before God says what His desires are? Who's really leading the church in that scenario?

This also sounds a lot like confirmation bias. You get the answer you want to get.

There's at least scriptural precedent. Jonah, a prophet, didn't hear or heed God's will until he suddenly had a very significant and urgent need to

[canard78]

Unless the leaders of the Church in 1978 were being dishonest (I don't believe they were), the testimony of the revelation from God to revoke the ban, as recorded in Official Declaration 2, should be enough evidence that the ban had a divine origin, at least for those who believe the latter-day prophets are inspired and truthful -- the Declaration makes this crystal clear. Enjoy your continued second guessing of the Lord's anointed.

Receiving revelation to end something is not evidence that there was revelation to start something.

Thinking of an example... a Bishop might make a "calling of convenience" and not receive revelation to call the person. The person acts in their calling for 2 years and the Bishop is changed.

The Bishop's replacement is more committed to only making callings through inspired means. He doesn't know that the person was not called through revelation but is committed to only change the calling after receiving revelation. He makes no immediate change as he doesn't think there's a need to. He assumes his predecessor had used the same approach to issuing a calling. When he eventually comes to make a change he, like Pres McKay and Pres Kimball and the ban, believes inspiration/revelation will be needed to make the change. He seeks it, receives it and makes the change.

Does the fact that the release was done by seeking divine approval mean the original call was made under the same process? No, it does not.

We can of course discuss whether that meant the original Bishop made a mistake/did the wrong thing/slowed the work of The Lord by potentially calling the wrong person. That's an interesting extension of the analogy in relation to the priesthood ban. But the main point is to illustrate that some church members or leaders make decisions or do things without seeking divine approval and later members or leaders change it after seeking inspiration and divine approval.

Therefore, this shows that OD2 does not provide any evidence at all that church leaders introduced the ban after seeking revelation. It only provides evidence that church leaders ended the ban after seeking and receiving revelation.

[Bernard Gui]

I foresee church dissidents and critics now being enabled to pull "the priesthood ban retraction" card with impunity for any issue that gives them acid reflux.

For my part, I believe the ban was inspired as was the lifting of the ban. The reason was to insure the growth and preservation of the Church during times of great upheaval until the time was right to integrate the Priesthood. My great-grand parents, grandparents, and parents were not ready, but I was. The timing was perfect.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[canard78]

I foresee church dissidents and critics now being enabled to pull "the priesthood ban retraction" card with impunity for any issue that gives them acid reflux.

For my part, I believe the ban was inspired as was the lifting of the ban. The reason was to insure the growth and preservation of the Church during times of great upheaval until the time was right to integrate the Priesthood. My great-grand parents, grandparents, and parents were not ready, but I was. The timing was perfect.

 

If you're right then that raises all sorts of implications of its own. A prophet is supposed to educate us of the error of our prejudices and ignorance. Not compound them and make them easier to hold onto.

 

Does that mean that potentially the word of wisdom and tithing should be at our own discretion not by prescription; that gays should be allowed to marry; that women should have the priesthood; that sex before marriage is acceptable etc etc. We're just simply not ready to accept it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I foresee church dissidents and critics now being enabled to pull "the priesthood ban retraction" card with impunity for any issue that gives them acid reflux.

For my part, I believe the ban was inspired as was the lifting of the ban. The reason was to insure the growth and preservation of the Church during times of great upheaval until the time was right to integrate the Priesthood. My great-grand parents, grandparents, and parents were not ready, but I was. The timing was perfect.

I just can't swallow this. If this were true polygamy would never have been implemented.

[Tacenda]

This LDS.org article shouts to me that ever since BY and until the ban was removed, we didn't have a prophet in the true sense of the word, or God did want the blacks denied the Priesthood. The article states not in these words, that it was a time of racial descrimation, that our early prophets were a product of their environment. If so wouldn't they have listened to God vs. the mortals and not banned the blacks, even if it was only BY, doesn't a prophet get revelation without having to always ask. Or does it have to go by a committee, because we apparently don't really trust one man with revelation, which is fine by me, but makes me feel that anyone can be a prophet. Trust issues are now cemented in for me. It's a dawn of a new age for the LDS, I do hope it's a good one, for my family, neighbors, friends and all members or members to come.