Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[BCSpace]

How do you know the difference between a prophets mouth being controlled by god or a prophet using his agency to express his own opinions?

 

There are two ways and each addresses a different aspect.

 

1) Whatever the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially publishes without a disclaimer (the Bible Dictionary is an example of such a disclaimer) stating otherwise and of latest date (recognizing ongoing inspiration/revelation) is the official doctrine of the Church whether we personally believe it or not.  This is shown in several official statements (a link in my siggy for one) and current publications of the Church (Teaching, No Greater Call and others).

 

2) The personal witness of the Holy Ghost is how we are to determine spiritual truths for ourselves.

 

Obviously there is a conflict when two people claim to have received answers that differ, so in terms of public discussion the only rational recourse, if one accepts the overall truth and authority claims of the Church, is to go back to number one and admit that one is or is not in harmony with what the Church says.  From there you can claim the Church is either right or wrong, and hopefully, show your work.

 

I believe I am in perfect harmony with the Church on this particular issue as I accept every doctrinal statement on it made in accordance with number one above.  I freely admit to not being in harmony with the Church on a couple of other minor (according to my judgement) issues such as the Global Flood (I accept a local Flood instead) for example.

[Stone holm]

We are a conservative religion by nature in that we stick with the way things are until something better comes along.

Never underestimate the power of social inertia.

[pogi]

How do you know the difference between a prophets mouth being controlled by god or a prophet using his agency to express his own opinions?

 

Brigham Young said - "the greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord."

 

Truman Madsen said - Said the Prophet Joseph Smith after one of the most revelatory meetings in his life, “There was nothing made known to these men [the Twelve] but what will be made known to all the Saints of the last days, so soon as they are prepared to receive” (Teachings, p. 237). This is the religion of every man. Not “Take my word for my experience,” but “Duplicate it in your own life.” 

[Stone holm]

Was this timed to coincide with news of Nelson Mandela 's death?

[thesometimesaint]

Never underestimate the power of social inertia.

 

True.

[CA Steve]

None that I know of. Though it could be argued that God places us in where we will best serve his purposes.

Well doesn't this also question of the validity of past statements like this one from David O McKay?

 

 

“preexistence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born have a relationship in the life heretofore.

Isn't it still a common belief in the church that we were chosen or chose, in the preexistence, to be here at this time with the families we have, based on actions we took in the preexistence?

 

Are these also theories to be disavowed?

[canard78]

Was this timed to coincide with news of Nelson Mandela 's death?

Articles like this take more than 48 hours to write and approve so I doubt it. Perhaps it was published a little earlier than planned. There are a few race-related "mea culpa" articles at the moment.

[thesometimesaint]

Probably not. Trying to get into the mind of someone else is a scary thought.

 

Maybe I should start a thread on Nelson Mandela.

[Stone holm]

Articles like this take more than 48 hours to write and approve so I doubt it. Perhaps it was published a little earlier than planned. There are a few race-related "mea culpa" articles at the moment.

Except, the coincidence suggests some type of connection. Given the right wing disparagement of Mandela, it would be a good preemptive public relations move to Ward off being associated with the racist portion of the right wing.

[thesometimesaint]

Well doesn't this also question of the validity of past statements like this one from David O McKay?

 

Isn't it still a common belief in the church that we were chosen or chose, in the preexistence, to be here at this time with the families we have, based on actions we took in the preexistence?

 

Are these also theories to be disavowed?

 

I don't believe so. The main reason would be that we have no idea as to why God chooses which family we go to. All we really know is that God takes everything in consideration when we stand before him in judgement.

[Stone holm]

Well doesn't this also question of the validity of past statements like this one from David O McKay?

 

Isn't it still a common belief in the church that we were chosen or chose, in the preexistence, to be here at this time with the families we have, based on actions we took in the preexistence?

 

Are these also theories to be disavowed?

Yes, but speculating as to why any specific individual was assigned where has always been problematic, Christ even pointed out the flaws in such speculation.

[foster]

Just every single attempt to doctrinally justify it.

 

Yes the Church condemned the "theories" offered by other. Just as I would expect the Church to "condemn" the "tanic acid theory" for the Word Of Wisdom, or the "lack of men theory" for polygamy.

 

I do not see where the Church condemned the prior First Presidency statements on the matter.

[thesometimesaint]

Except, the coincidence suggests some type of connection. Given the right wing disparagement of Mandela, it would be a good preemptive public relations move to Ward off being associated with the racist portion of the right wing.

 

Correlation isn't causation.

[BCSpace]

BCSpace since you have taken three threads to say the Church still stands by the ban being revealation

 

 

It should be noted that I didn't start any of them, I merely addressed each OP which all happened to be quite similar. And I note others are also participating in all three threads as well

 

 

BCSpace - I think you are mistaken.  The Church stopped short of saying the ban was inspired.

 

Yes.  The Church is very adept PR-wise as demonstrated by the SSM issue (and the Plural Marriage issues while we're at it) in which no doctrine changed but a different face of the same doctrine is was presented in response to criticism.

 

 

Without having a record of BY stating his reason for implementing said ban, there is no way to throw him under the bus unless God clears up the WHY or an unknown document surfaces.

 

Agreed.  We should take the Church's comparison of BY's institution of the policy with inspired prophecy and revelation, as explicitly stated, at face value and not throw BY under the bus by saying he was wrong to implement the policy when the Church hasn't said anything of the kind just because we dislike it.

 

And I find it weird that you claim to know it is divinely instituted and Elder Holland doesn't.

 

There is nothing contradictory here.  It is essentially the same as the Church statement in question. Hollands statement (in a non doctrinal venue btw unless also published by the Church) is boiled down to two items:

 

"All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ..."

 

 "At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place."

 

He doesn't appear to be vacillating.  Rather he is distinguishing between the official (and thus inspired) practice, policy, and doctrine, and the explanations thereof.  He did not say the practice, policy, and doctrine were inadequate or wrong.

 

I think the deeper we go into this the more we realize that the statement on the surface, that the Church leaders felt a revelation was needed to change the policy, tells us all we need to know.  That the Church considers what the previous prophets did was inspired and won't question that.  They even acknowledge DoM's attempt to get such a revelation met with no success.  If the Church believes the policy was not inspired I don't think they would take such great pains to point all this out and make such comparisons.

[Chaos]

Jeremy's thread on the same topic has been merged with this one.

[rockpond]

I know that I'm jumping in late here but I think this was a great statement for the church to publish.  I especially appreciate the final paragraph that provides a scriptural backing for the idea that the ban was not the will of God.

 

The disappointing aspect, for me, was that they still make it sound as if Brigham Young was prophesying something along the lines of the 1978 revelation.  That wasn't really what he taught.  He taught more of a millennial restoration of those blessings to black members.

 

The disavowal of all past explanations is great to read and have published but I wish we could just say, without reservation, that it was a mistake and we're grateful that the prophet corrected it through revelation.  Instead, couching it as a fulfillment of some "prophecy" of BY still attempts to lend credibility to the ban (IMO) made worse by the fact that OD2 wasn't really a fulfillment of BY's promise/prophecy.

 

1854

"When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity".

 

1859

"How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed".

[thesometimesaint]

God doesn't make sock puppets. It is entirely possible for BY to have been wrong on the reason(s) for the ban and still be inspired to put the ban in place.

[juliann]

 

I know that I'm jumping in late here but I think this was a great statement for the church to publish.  I especially appreciate the final paragraph that provides a scriptural backing for the idea that the ban was not the will of God.

 

The disappointing aspect, for me, was that they still make it sound as if Brigham Young was prophesying something along the lines of the 1978 revelation.  That wasn't really what he taught.  He taught more of a millennial restoration of those blessings to black members.

 

 

But I think that because BY put the ban into effect, it was important to show that even he didn't think it was forever.  There are other statements from leaders saying that blacks would eventually receive all.   My memory might be wrong,  but I believe BY and JFS were the only ones to set restrictions.  JFS was the worst, he said they would be servants in heaven. 

[thesometimesaint]

But I think that because BY put the ban into effect, it was important to show that even he didn't think it was forever.  There are other statements from leaders saying that blacks would eventually receive all.   My memory might be wrong,  but I believe BY and JFS were the only ones to set restrictions.  JFS was the worst, he said they would be servants in heaven. 

 

We will all be servants of God in Heaven, but I doubt that is what JFS meant.

[juliann]

Well doesn't this also question of the validity of past statements like this one from David O McKay?

 

Isn't it still a common belief in the church that we were chosen or chose, in the preexistence, to be here at this time with the families we have, based on actions we took in the preexistence?

 

Are these also theories to be disavowed?

I hope so.

[BCSpace]

I especially appreciate the final paragraph that provides a scriptural backing for the idea that the ban was not the will of God.

 

How do you figure?  Considering 2 Nephi 26:33, did the ban include the notion that blacks were ever not loved by God, or that God did not consider them along with everyone else to be all alike, or that never at any time would they receive the full blessings?

 

I think we are forgetting that the past prophets were operating under pretty much the same doctrines and scriptures we are today including 2 Nephi 26:33.  I'm quite certain they didn't ignore that or other relevant verses.

 

Instead, couching it as a fulfillment of some "prophecy" of BY still attempts to lend credibility to the ban (IMO)

 

 

If the ban was inspired, how is that a bad thing?  A difficult thing perhaps, but not bad.

 

made worse by the fact that OD2 wasn't really a fulfillment of BY's promise/prophecy.

 

The Church seems to think so.

[Tacenda]

Yes, but speculating as to why any specific individual was assigned where has always been problematic, Christ even pointed out the flaws in such speculation.

The thought of predestination and being born into horrible situations because they were placed there or chose it, bothers me. I'm not so sure if I believe in it the way I once did.

[juliann]

Altersteve, I beleive you are correct that the Church condemns racism.  But a reading of Juliann's post, she is suggesting, that the ban was racist and the Church was racist until 1978.  The latest pronouncement does not state that restriction was racist and I have not read that the Church has condemned the ban.

 So "The church condemns all racism past and present...except what we did wasn't racism, oh, wait... why are we saying anything at all, nevermind."     Yes, by any definition of racism the doctrine that the church put into place and upheld was racist.  It is an ugly word, we don't like it, but we can't insert "except for Mormons" in everyone's dictionaries.   Perhaps you do not recall Pres. Hinckley's shockingly worded statement that anyone who thought that someone was not eligible for the priesthood because of race was arrogant.  He also did not include a footnote saying "except all of us prophets....". 

[Calm]

If it is so, then it is much more likely that those who are born into horrible situations are those who were magnificent in the preexistence, since God does not give us more than we can bear.  Easier lives would be given to those who are weaker spiritually, emotionally, etc.

[thesometimesaint]

The thought of predestination and being born into horrible situations because they were placed there or chose it, bothers me. I'm not so sure if I believe in it the way I once did.

 

The Saints don't believe in predestination. We believe in foreordination. What may be horrible situations to us maybe what is needed for us in the eternities to become like God.