Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[CV75]

That wasn't my point.  I never insinuated that.

 

 

Exactly.  I am simply wondering how well we are doing as a church at doing this.  All of these false teachings from the authorities that tried to explain the ban would not have been spread like wild-fire had we been practicing the above council and lesson.

 

 

 

In other words, close your eyes to what is wrong and only look at what is right.  

 

 

So, we should just let the fire spread?    What about the enmity and contention that was created from the false teaching in the first place?  Wouldn't your approach of silence make us accomplices in the spread of hurtful teachings and beliefs that create "enmity and contention among the flock"?

LOL--you're doing it!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This, in its specifics, detail, and candor,  is brand new, and huge:

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

 

The whole longform article is amazing, placing the restriction in a cultural and historical context, and not defending anywhere the idea that it represented God's will at any point. No more justifications with comparisons of OT restriction of Priesthood to Levites. This is huge.

 

Share this far and wide.

It is because it was always a mistake, and good men eventually make right,what was wrong. God compels us to "appeal to our better angels".

[foster]

We're not members of "the one and only true church." We've never claimed to be.

What we do claim is the "only true and living church with which The Lord is well-pleased." This said in the context of a section that reminds the church and its leaders of their human limitations.

None of the prophets are exempt from "seeing through a glass darkly."

 

The Only True and Living Church

Dallin H. Oaks

So what does it mean that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true Church?

 

Three features—(1) fulness of doctrine, (2) power of the priesthood, and (3) testimony of Jesus Christ—explain why God has declared and why we as His servants maintain that this is the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth.

 

 

Why Are We Members of the Only True Church?

Enrique R. Falabella Of the Seventy

“I am a member of the only true Church upon the face of the earth…”

[CV75]

What is one to do in the pursuit of truth (not fault-finding) and stumbles upon a false teaching that is causing much hurt?

We are taught how to pursue truth and how not to fault-find. It is to do so with real intent. We don't just stumble upon false teachings or into becoming captious. Faith and humility do not work that way. Enmity and contention are not tools or fruits of spiritual discovery and sharing.

 

When it comes to personally revealed truth, the keys to actually do something about it Church-wide is absolutely essential. If it is that important right now, the Lord will make sure you get the keys, or will reveal the same thing to those that do have the keys to do something about it right now.

 

I think if we make enough right in our own life and relationships, we find the right balance of truth, grace, faith, humility, friendship and harmony. Those who are negatively affected by any imperfection (real or perceived) in others or in the Church will find sufficeint comfort in and through our association to not give up on the covenants and ordinances that we do know lead us to Christ right now, and that is the most important thing.

[Calm]

In other words, close your eyes to what is wrong and only look at what is right.

the only way to avoid error is to be aware of it, not to close one's eyes to it....but being aware of it isn't the same of having it (in the sense of working to avoid it) as the central focus of our lives....think of it as a builder who pays attention to everything that might bring his building down but gives little attention to what makes it stand up strong....he's not going to accomplish much either way.

 

 And it is very helpful to keep one's focus on what is right because that allows us to know what error is due to the contrast between what we see of the right and what we see of error.

 

 

So, we should just let the fire spread?    What about the enmity and contention that was created from the false teaching in the first place?  Wouldn't your approach of silence make us accomplices in the spread of hurtful teachings and beliefs that create "enmity and contention among the flock"?

There is, imo, a fine balance between speaking up to prevent error from being spread and spreading that error just by drawing attention to it. There are studies that demonstrate that at giving corrections can actually in the long run strengthen a false belief, not weaken it. I think with this concern, living by the Spirit will help us to know when it is better to speak up and when it is better to stay silent and let teh falsehood die a natural death (some do).

[Tacenda]

“There is no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel than that our condition in the next world will depend upon the kind of lives we live here. …Is it not just as reasonable to suppose that the conditions in which we now live have been determined by the kind of lives we lived in the pre-existent world of spirits? That the apostles understood this principle is indicated by their question to the Master when the man who was blind from his birth was healed of his blindness, ‘Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’ (John 9:2.) Now perhaps you will have a partial answer to some of your questions as to why, if God is a just Father, that some of his children are born of an enlightened race and in a time when the Gospel is upon the earth, while others are born of a heathen parentage in a benighted, backward country; and still others are born to parents who have the mark of a black skin with which the seed of Cain were cursed and whose descendants were to be denied the rights of the priesthood of God” (Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 164-165).

 

 

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/mormon-handicaps/

 

Saw this on FB, "Mormon Stories Podcast Group".  Interesting quote, along with many others.  Some leaders just get things wrong, I guess. 

Edited December 8, 2013 by Tacenda

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The Only True and Living Church

Dallin H. Oaks

So what does it mean that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true Church?

 

Three features—(1) fulness of doctrine, (2) power of the priesthood, and (3) testimony of Jesus Christ—explain why God has declared and why we as His servants maintain that this is the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth.

 

 

Why Are We Members of the Only True Church?

Enrique R. Falabella Of the Seventy

“I am a member of the only true Church upon the face of the earth…”

We still have Prophets and Apostles, continuing revelation and an open canon.

[pogi]

There is, imo, a fine balance between speaking up to prevent error from being spread and spreading that error just by drawing attention to it. There are studies that demonstrate that at giving corrections can actually in the long run strengthen a false belief, not weaken it. I think with this concern, living by the Spirit will help us to know when it is better to speak up and when it is better to stay silent and let teh falsehood die a natural death (some do).

 

I think the underlined part is absolutely true.  In fact, here is direct evidence:

 

“My plea, then to the civil rights organizations and to all critics of the Mormon Church is: get off our backs! ... agitation over the ‘Negro issue’ by non-Mormon groups, or even by Mormon liberals, is likely simply to increase the resistance to change.”

 

- Armand L. Mauss, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1967, pp. 38-39

 

Here is another:

 

“The Church is either true or it isn’t. If it changes its stand on the strength of the ‘great stream of modern religious and social thought,’ it will be proven criticism.... If the Church is true it will hold to its beliefs in spite of its members. If it is false, more power to the easy-way-out philosophers who claim to know the ‘imperious truths of the contemporary world.’”

 

- Paul C. Richards, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1967, p. 6

 

And one more:

 

“The revelation that the church is talking about with respect to the Negro and the priesthood should have been sought 50 years ago – not now when we are forced into looking for one. Even if a revelation should come now, we have compromised our position because it looks as if we have been forced into seeking it, which will be true.”

 

- Donald Ira French, Jr., Mormon elder and writer, Time, Nov. 1, 1963

 

The church apparently does not like feeling pressured to seek revelation, but one wonders what would have happened if no pressure was given.

 

You are absolutely right, it is an extremely delicate line.  If done in a contentious and "captious" spirit, as CV75 would say, it can cause more harm than good.  If I pray to know if a teaching is true (as we are encouraged to do), and receive a strong impression from the spirit that it is false, that places me in a very delicate and uncomfortable position to say the least.  

[Stone holm]

I think the underlined part is absolutely true.  In fact, here is direct evidence:

 

“My plea, then to the civil rights organizations and to all critics of the Mormon Church is: get off our backs! ... agitation over the ‘Negro issue’ by non-Mormon groups, or even by Mormon liberals, is likely simply to increase the resistance to change.”

 

- Armand L. Mauss, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1967, pp. 38-39

 

Here is another:

 

“The Church is either true or it isn’t. If it changes its stand on the strength of the ‘great stream of modern religious and social thought,’ it will be proven criticism.... If the Church is true it will hold to its beliefs in spite of its members. If it is false, more power to the easy-way-out philosophers who claim to know the ‘imperious truths of the contemporary world.’”

 

- Paul C. Richards, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1967, p. 6

 

And one more:

 

“The revelation that the church is talking about with respect to the Negro and the priesthood should have been sought 50 years ago – not now when we are forced into looking for one. Even if a revelation should come now, we have compromised our position because it looks as if we have been forced into seeking it, which will be true.”

 

- Donald Ira French, Jr., Mormon elder and writer, Time, Nov. 1, 1963

 

The church apparently does not like feeling pressured to seek revelation, but one wonders what would have happened if no pressure was given.

 

You are absolutely right, it is an extremely delicate line.  If done in a contentious and "captious" spirit, as CV75 would say, it can cause more harm than good.  If I pray to know if a teaching is true (as we are encouraged to do), and receive a strong impression from the spirit that it is false, that places me in a very delicate and uncomfortable position to say the least.

There is some wisdom here and a baffling tactical problem FO reformists, that being to noisy actually causes people to dig in their heels, while merely opening the door sometimes causes the beast to come out simply for curiosity sake.

[Duncan]

“There is no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel than that our condition in the next world will depend upon the kind of lives we live here. …Is it not just as reasonable to suppose that the conditions in which we now live have been determined by the kind of lives we lived in the pre-existent world of spirits? That the apostles understood this principle is indicated by their question to the Master when the man who was blind from his birth was healed of his blindness, ‘Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’ (John 9:2.) Now perhaps you will have a partial answer to some of your questions as to why, if God is a just Father, that some of his children are born of an enlightened race and in a time when the Gospel is upon the earth, while others are born of a heathen parentage in a benighted, backward country; and still others are born to parents who have the mark of a black skin with which the seed of Cain were cursed and whose descendants were to be denied the rights of the priesthood of God” (Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 164-165).

 

 

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/mormon-handicaps/

 

Saw this on FB, "Mormon Stories Podcast Group".  Interesting quote, along with many others.  Some leaders just get things wrong, I guess. 

 

 

This is the thing too, in Alma 13 we learn that brethren who hold the MP were foreordained to it and so if they live up to it here will hold it and hopefully will hold out faithful. Problem comes in when someone dies without holding it, does that mean that they weren't faithful in the pre-mortal life? I think the answer is who knows! I would say that the Pope is more righteous than I but I hold the Priesthood and he doesn't. Plus what we do here impacts on us in the next life. So, if you read what the scriptures actually say about the premortal life and foreordination, it's very, very little. I have been studying foreordination for about 13 years now and it's not much. if you are a man then I think we can say what the scriptures say that if you bear the MP and are a Bishop or Prophet then you were foreordained to it, beyond that I have no clue and my reading of it we can't say.

[Stone holm]

This is the thing too, in Alma 13 we learn that brethren who hold the MP were foreordained to it and so if they live up to it here will hold it and hopefully will hold out faithful. Problem comes in when someone dies without holding it, does that mean that they weren't faithful in the pre-mortal life? I think the answer is who knows! I would say that the Pope is more righteous than I but I hold the Priesthood and he doesn't. Plus what we do here impacts on us in the next life. So, if you read what the scriptures actually say about the premortal life and foreordination, it's very, very little. I have been studying foreordination for about 13 years now and it's not much. if you are a man then I think we can say what the scriptures say that if you bear the MP and are a Bishop or Prophet then you were foreordained to it, beyond that I have no clue and my reading of it we can't say.

Do you thin Pope Francis just randomly became the Pope, or was he foreordained to be such during a time when the Catholic Church seemed to be foundering in right wing politics? Or does The Lord not care what goes on in other Churches? The point being that some people may have been born black in order to help all humankind treat each other better thinking King and Mandela here.

[Duncan]

Do you thin Pope Francis just randomly became the Pope, or was he foreordained to be such during a time when the Catholic Church seemed to be foundering in right wing politics? Or does The Lord not care what goes on in other Churches? The point being that some people may have been born black in order to help all humankind treat each other better thinking King and Mandela here.

 

 

well, that's what I don't know but you may be right. What I can say is if you bear the priesthood then you were foreordained to it as per Alma 13

[Stone holm]

well, that's what I don't know but you may be right. What I can say is if you bear the priesthood then you were foreordained to it as per Alma 13

Well have thought about that a bit, so leaving aside the notion that some people were cursed in the premarital existence, an idea the Church is starting to shy away from, then we must assume that some people were foreordained not to have the Priesthood. Which suggests that perhaps The Lord has missions outside the Church for certain individuals, a situation that was not changed by lifting the ban. Otherwise the statement is kind of pointless since all males who are born are foreordained to hold the Priesthood.

[BlueDreams]

 that some people were cursed in the premarital existence, an idea the Church is starting to shy away from, then we must assume that some people were foreordained not to have the Priesthood. Which suggests that perhaps The Lord has missions outside the Church for certain individuals, a situation that was not changed by lifting the ban. Otherwise the statement is kind of pointless since all males who are born are foreordained to hold the Priesthood.

 

I'm offended stoneholm for all of us still in that premarital existence. We're single but I'm sure I'll a place somewhere in this church

 

....Sorry, I couldn't resist....hehehe, cursed in the premarital existence.....

 

With luv,

BD 

[Stone holm]

I'm offended stoneholm for all of us still in that premarital existence. We're single but I'm sure I'll a place somewhere in this church

 

....Sorry, I couldn't resist....hehehe, cursed in the premarital existence.....

 

With luv,

BD

Um, sorry, this iPad makes some rather weird autocorrects and I have a bad habit of not checking its modifications...but I suspect you figured out that was supposed to say premortal , it just tried to do it again.

[thesometimesaint]

“There is no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel than that our condition in the next world will depend upon the kind of lives we live here. …Is it not just as reasonable to suppose that the conditions in which we now live have been determined by the kind of lives we lived in the pre-existent world of spirits? That the apostles understood this principle is indicated by their question to the Master when the man who was blind from his birth was healed of his blindness, ‘Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’ (John 9:2.) Now perhaps you will have a partial answer to some of your questions as to why, if God is a just Father, that some of his children are born of an enlightened race and in a time when the Gospel is upon the earth, while others are born of a heathen parentage in a benighted, backward country; and still others are born to parents who have the mark of a black skin with which the seed of Cain were cursed and whose descendants were to be denied the rights of the priesthood of God” (Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 164-165).

 

 

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/mormon-handicaps/

 

Saw this on FB, "Mormon Stories Podcast Group".  Interesting quote, along with many others.  Some leaders just get things wrong, I guess. 

 

They as well as we often do.

[CV75]

You are absolutely right, it is an extremely delicate line.  If done in a contentious and "captious" spirit, as CV75 would say, it can cause more harm than good.  If I pray to know if a teaching is true (as we are encouraged to do), and receive a strong impression from the spirit that it is false, that places me in a very delicate and uncomfortable position to say the least.

I think there is enough in the covenants themselves to keep us focused on where they lead every one of us, regardless of differences in belief and doctrine. And the Gift of the Holy Ghost will comfort us and make any burden like this easier to bear, and bearable. In this way we can keep them sacred and not trade them for anything. Nothing is worth being separated from them.

I would also say that delicate and uncomfortable positions are part of our mortal probation. I think a good example of such is found in the command to be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." That's a pretty tough balance, whether among wolves or not!

[canard78]

The Only True and Living Church

Dallin H. Oaks

So what does it mean that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true Church?

 

Three features—(1) fulness of doctrine, (2) power of the priesthood, and (3) testimony of Jesus Christ—explain why God has declared and why we as His servants maintain that this is the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth.

 

 

Why Are We Members of the Only True Church?

Enrique R. Falabella Of the Seventy

“I am a member of the only true Church upon the face of the earth…”

 

I stand corrected on the "we've never claimed to be." Given this thread is all about leaders misinterpreting scriptures I think it's useful that you've brought us two more examples of misinterpretation. 

[Stone holm]

I think there is enough in the covenants themselves to keep us focused on where they lead every one of us, regardless of differences in belief and doctrine. And the Gift of the Holy Ghost will comfort us and make any burden like this easier to bear, and bearable. In this way we can keep them sacred and not trade them for anything. Nothing is worth being separated from them.

I would also say that delicate and uncomfortable positions are part of our mortal probation. I think a good example of such is found in the command to be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." That's a pretty tough balance, whether among wolves or not!

 

Seems to me that its only a problem if you have an over developed defensiveness when it comes to the Church,  you can still believe the Church is true in spite of the leadership from time to time.  Its only when you feel obligated to defend the leadership no matter what by-way they decide to travel down that it becomes problematic.

[Brian 2.0]

Brian 2.0, what would it say about the Church, if the Church were to adopt your position? How would you address that the one and only true Church operated on a false doctrine and acting counter to the Commands and edicts of God (all are equal) for nearly the majority of its existence?

This question doesn't totally apply to me since I no longer believe. But I see how the church is between a rock and a hard place on this. It almost seems as if they want to say "the ban was a mistake, never should have happened, sorry for the hurt, glad it's over." That would be a nice "case closed, let's move on" with the issue. But such a move is difficult because it calls into question the reliability of the prophets messages today and in the past. Admitting that prophets make mistakes even when speaking as prophets and in signed first presidency statements means that the prophets could be wrong today in their stance on women, gays, whatever.

I know a lot of people operate with that mindset already and rely in their own spiritual confirmations, but a lot of people simply rely on the prophet and do things because "the prophet said so."

[rockpond]

It almost seems as if they want to say "the ban was a mistake, never should have happened, sorry for the hurt, glad it's over."

But such a move is difficult because it calls into question the reliability of the prophets messages today and in the past. Admitting that prophets make mistakes even when speaking as prophets and in signed first presidency statements means that the prophets could be wrong today in their stance on women, gays, whatever.

Isn't this exactly what they've done?

[Glenn101]

Isn't this exactly what they've done?

 

What thay have done is really to muddy the waters even more. The writer of the article still leaves everything up in the air, but with maybe an implication that maye the origin of the ban was racist and not from God and that following prophets just accepted and perpetuated the myth. So, if one chooses to believe that particular line, he or she has some fodder for the fire. However, I do not think that the statement is really saying anything new, but is mostly summarizng what has been taught subsequent to the 1978 revelation.

 

Glenn

[Thinking]

Is the apology by the church an admission that the church was led astray? If so, how is it reconciled with Wilford Woodruff's statement in OD1?

 

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

[Brian 2.0]

Isn't this exactly what they've done?

I don't see the article calling the ban a mistake or being wrong. As Glenn said, they've kept all the balls still up in the air. They've disavowed all explanations for the ban, but still haven't given a stance on the ban itself. Which is why this issue will not go away anytime soon. Those hoping this article will put the issue to rest will most likely be disappointed.

Nothing really has changed, it's just all a little more organized and clearly said.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[canard78]

What thay have done is really to muddy the waters even more. The writer of the article still leaves everything up in the air, but with maybe an implication that maye the origin of the ban was racist and not from God and that following prophets just accepted and perpetuated the myth. So, if one chooses to believe that particular line, he or she has some fodder for the fire. However, I do not think that the statement is really saying anything new, but is mostly summarizng what has been taught subsequent to the 1978 revelation.

 

Glenn

 

It disavows things that were considered doctrine in the past. 

 

In 1947 the First Presidency stated that it was God's doctrine that racial inter-marriage was 

 

 “Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous... We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

 

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n5/mode/1up

(Emphasis added)

 

Did they try to lead Dr Nelson astray in teaching him it was repugnant?

 

Further to that, the new article says that the church condemns all forms of racism. The ban was a form of racism (a denial of rights based on race), so, by implication, is condemned.