2015 Curriculum

[Buzzard]

 

I read the article and it was pretty much as you explained earlier.  Elder McConkie hit the nail on the head when he explained what did not happen:

 

“The Lord could have sent messengers from the other side to deliver it, but he did not. He gave the revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost. . . . And maybe some . . . would like to believe that the Lord himself was there, or that the Prophet Joseph Smith came to deliver the revelation. . . . Well, these things did not happen. The stories that go around to the contrary are not factual or realistic or true.”

 

The only thing this doesn't answer is how does these meetings usually work?  Don't they always gather around to discuss the issue logically and then go to the altar to get confirmation?  So what was so "revelatory" here?  Do they not usually hear from the Lord?

 

Also, and this is just my limited understanding, but I don't consider it particularly "revelatory" when I use logic and reason to come to a conclusion and then get confirmation from the Holy Spirit.  It is helpful but not "revelatory."  For example, if I decide to move to Cleveland (don't ask me why) and I get confirmation from the Holy Spirit, great!  But I don't consider it some great revelatory experience.  On the other hand, if I ask about going to Cleveland, and the Lord instead directs me to say, Nome, Alaska.  THAT is revelation -- the Lord REVEALING an opportunity that I wasn't otherwise aware of.  Just my limited understanding, I guess.

 

I was serving my mission when this happened, and a few months later, Elder Perry was touring the European missions and we had a mission conference.  He specifically addressed what happened that day, and he had no doubt that it was a profoundly revelatory experience. I'm happy to take the word of someone who was there when it happened.

[mormonnewb]

I was serving my mission when this happened, and a few months later, Elder Perry was touring the European missions and we had a mission conference. He specifically addressed what happened that day, and he had no doubt that it was a profoundly revelatory experience. I'm happy to take the word of someone who was there when it happened.

I don't doubt that it happened just as described, but just because someone thinks they had a revelatory experience, that does not make it so.

Even more, how was that experience any different than the one they have EVERY month? Do they usually leave the altar not hearing from HF?

[JLHPROF]

 

I read the article and it was pretty much as you explained earlier.  Elder McConkie hit the nail on the head when he explained what did not happen:

 

“The Lord could have sent messengers from the other side to deliver it, but he did not. He gave the revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost. . . . And maybe some . . . would like to believe that the Lord himself was there, or that the Prophet Joseph Smith came to deliver the revelation. . . . Well, these things did not happen. The stories that go around to the contrary are not factual or realistic or true.”

 

The only thing this doesn't answer is how does these meetings usually work?  Don't they always gather around to discuss the issue logically and then go to the altar to get confirmation?  So what was so "revelatory" here?  Do they not usually hear from the Lord?

 

Also, and this is just my limited understanding, but I don't consider it particularly "revelatory" when I use logic and reason to come to a conclusion and then get confirmation from the Holy Spirit.  It is helpful but not "revelatory."  For example, if I decide to move to Cleveland (don't ask me why) and I get confirmation from the Holy Spirit, great!  But I don't consider it some great revelatory experience.  On the other hand, if I ask about going to Cleveland, and the Lord instead directs me to say, Nome, Alaska.  THAT is revelation -- the Lord REVEALING an opportunity that I wasn't otherwise aware of.  Just my limited understanding, I guess.

 

 

All descriptions of the revelation show that it was a "spiritual witness" type revelation, not a "revealing information".  They asked if the time had come, and felt that yes, it had.  And there was an outpouring of the spirit.

This is why there is no written revelation form of the revelation.  It was a purely spiritual one, no words.

 

 

 

“I was in the temple when President Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation regarding the priesthood. I was the junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I was there. I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterward. We just left quietly to go back to the office. No one could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience." Elder Haight

 

"It was given President Kimball what he should ask. He prayed by the power of the Spirit, and there was perfect unity, total and complete harmony, between the Presidency and the Twelve on the issue involved.

“And when President Kimball finished his prayer, the Lord gave a revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost. . . .

“On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced. The revelation came to the President of the Church; it also came to each individual present. There were ten members of the Council of the Twelve and three of the First Presidency there assembled. The result was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood and the blessings of the house of the Lord, to those of every nation, culture, and race, including the black race. There was no question whatsoever as to what happened or as to the word and message that came." Elder McConkie

 

"No, it wasn't like any other moment. There was something of a Pentecostal spirit. But on the other hand it was peaceful, quiet, not a cataclysmic thing in any sense. There was just a feeling that came over all of us, and we knew that it was the right thing at the right time and that we should proceed." President Hinckley

 

“‘In 1978 came the revelation, 20 years ago, concerning offering the priesthood and every other gift of the Church to every worthy man. I want to give testimony here that that was inspired, that that was a revelation from God. I was there. I was an eyewitness to it in the House of the Lord. … How grateful we are." Pres. Hinckley

 

[mormonnewb]

All descriptions of the revelation show that it was a "spiritual witness" type revelation, not a "revealing information". They asked if the time had come, and felt that yes, it had. And there was an outpouring of the spirit.

This is why there is no written revelation form of the revelation. It was a purely spiritual one, no words.

So what do they normally receive from HF as the result of their monthly visit to the altar? Is it unusual for them to get a spiritual witness about what they are doing?

Or was it that this witness was particularly strong? In that case, is it usually weak and barely discernible? If so, why are we putting so much confidence in their decisions if they aren't even sure they are getting it right most of the time?

Edited October 1, 2014 by mormonnewb

[JLHPROF]

So what do they normally receive from HF as the result of their monthly visit to the altar? Is it unusual for them to get a spiritual witness about what they are doing?

Or was it that this witness was particularly strong? In that case, is it usually weak and barely discernible? If so, why are we putting so much confidence in their decisions if they aren't even sure they are getting it right most of the time?

 

Good question.  Maybe there's a reference on the subject as to what sort of spiritual witness this was that made it so much stronger than the more mundane questions they pray about and get answers on.  I am unfamiliar with any.

 

Or basically, what made this a "Revelation" instead of a regular "inspiration revelation"?

Edited October 1, 2014 by JLHPROF

[teddyaware]

Sure he can, he is a white guy who is in a position to tell other ethnic groups what is good for them. That is one of those benefits of being "white."

 

And if you want to defend racism, Teddyaware, list the scriptures you think I don't understand.  I mean, I'm white...I get to interpret them for the benefit of those not white people, too! But here's the deal...we use documentation from accredited scholars rather than our blessed white status.

I thought I made a good effort in my last several posts explaining why God's curses, such as the curse He placed on the Lamanites, are not founded in racism. Perhaps you did not read my posts carefully? Or perhaps if you did read the posts you did not understand them. I've got nothing more to say to you other than what I've already written. If you want to believe the prophets of the Church were racists and not inspired by God in implementing the ban, that's your right and privilege.

Based on the tone of your post, I'll not be responding to you again on this particular thread.

Edited October 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[Shadrak]

Here is BY's quote introducing the ban before the Utah territory legislature Feb 5, 1852. Can anyone tell that this is not a revelation spoken by a prophet?

"If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off."

[Boanerges]

I thought I made a good effort in my last several posts explaining why God's curses, such as the curse He placed on the Lamanites, are not founded in racism. Perhaps you did not read my posts carefully? Or perhaps if you did read the posts you did not understand them. I've got nothing more to say to you other than what I've already written. If you want to believe the prophets of the Church were racists and not inspired by God in implementing the ban, that's your right and privilege.

Based on the tone of your post, I'll not be responding to you again on this particular thread.

 

Or perhaps some of us think you're off base or have a very different interpretation of the same thing. No offense intended, but you are no prophet, seer, and revelator. There is room for divergent thought and other points of view in the church.

[Boanerges]

Here is BY's quote introducing the ban before the Utah territory legislature Feb 5, 1852. Can anyone tell that this is not a revelation spoken by a prophet?

"If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off."

 

Every fast Sunday I hear all kinds of people stand up say they know things that I know they really don't know at all. They might believe it, even very firmly. But they do not know it despite using that word. Granted, the word does have a slightly different meaning in the Mormon lexicon. Nevertheless, I do not believe Brigham Young knew any such thing - and the church has clearly disavowed that particular aspect associated with the ban.

[juliann]

I thought I made a good effort in my last several posts explaining why God's curses, such as the curse He placed on the Lamanites, are not founded in racism. Perhaps you did not read my posts carefully? Or perhaps if you did read the posts you did not understand them. I've got nothing more to say to you other than what I've already written. If you want to believe the prophets of the Church were racists and not inspired by God in implementing the ban, that's your right and privilege.

Based on the tone of your post, I'll not be responding to you again on this particular thread.

How convenient.  I'm very uncertain how your inserting race into "curses" translates into prophets being racist, however. Just as you place yourself on the "blessings" side of the equation you now seem to be comparing yourself to prophets.

 

Blessings and curses were standard stuff in ancient contracts (covenants.) A curse always followed as a warning for those who did not live up to the contract. In other words, it is formulaic to the point of ritual. Now if you really want to get into the blessing/curse formula let's have a go at it. But you have brought this to the priesthood ban, which means skin color. It is too late to back away now.

 

I suggest you stop suggesting prophets are the racists and go over the Gospel Topic carefully enough to see that it does not say the ban came about by revelation anymore than it says it didn't. That means you have to make the case it was. And you haven't. And I'll tell you right now that assigning somebody else the curse side of the equation and then calling their misery a blessing will not earn you much respect.

 

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

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

  Wouldn't this be the place to say revelation explained it all? Not there...not anywhere.

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.²³

 

It takes a few cartwheels to rewrite this into saying that the church condemns all racism except their own after they have just outlined some racist theories promoted in the church. I suggest we religiously adhere to that last sentence and stop assigning curses to others.

Edited October 2, 2014 by juliann

[Kenngo1969]

I don't doubt that it happened just as described, but just because someone thinks they had a revelatory experience, that does not make it so.

Even more, how was that experience any different than the one they have EVERY month? Do they usually leave the altar not hearing from HF?

Well, geez, with due respect, this simply proves that our leaders are damned if they do, damned if they don't in your eyes, doesn't it, Newb?  On the one hand, the Priesthood restriction proves that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders were racist; and on the other hand, if they say they got a "revelation" lifting the restriction, well, you'll simply doubt that, too.

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

Every fast Sunday I hear all kinds of people stand up say they know things that I know they really don't know at all. ...

Oh, my goodness, gracious!  The cloak of relative anonymity that enables you to pass such an astounding judgment on your fellow Saints must be comfortable, indeed!  Have you marked 1 Samuel 16:7 thus in your Scriptures? "The Lord Boanerges seeth not as man the Lord seeth; for man The Lord looketh upon the outward appearance, but the Lord Boanerges looketh upon the heart"?

Edited October 2, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[juliann]

Here is BY's quote introducing the ban before the Utah territory legislature Feb 5, 1852. Can anyone tell that this is not a revelation spoken by a prophet?

"If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off."

Unless you are going to include everything he said about race rather than cherry picking the horrifying stuff, this could qualify as race baiting.

[mormonnewb]

Well, geez, with due respect, this simply proves that our leaders are damned if they do, damned if they don't in your eyes, doesn't it, Newb?  On the one hand, the Priesthood restriction proves that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders were racist; and on the other hand, if they say they got a "revelation" lifting the restriction, well, you'll simply doubt that, too.

 

 

This isn't about damning the prophets.  I have a serious question about the revelatory process.

 

We have a few quotes above by apostles who say that the priesthood revelation was special and unique because they had a clear and unmistakable witness of God's will.  That's fine.  I believe them.

 

My question is don't they ALWAYS get a clear and unmistakable witness of God's will before they act on behalf of His Church?  Or do they instead act when they are kinda sorta sure that maybe HF wouldn't mind too much if they did this or that?

 

Seriously, why were they so blown away to get a spiritual witness from the Lord?  I thought they ALWAYS received such witness.  However, it seems that (once again) I was wrong.

 

My question then becomes if they aren't always so sure about their decisions, then why are the rest of you always so sure about them?

[katherine the great]

Well, geez, with due respect, this simply proves that our leaders are damned if they do, damned if they don't in your eyes, doesn't it, Newb?  On the one hand, the Priesthood restriction proves that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders were racist; and on the other hand, if they say they got a "revelation" lifting the restriction, well, you'll simply doubt that, too.

 

Not to butt into your debate Ken but I think the argument is that the "policy" was racist.  

[teddyaware]

Or perhaps some of us think you're off base or have a very different interpretation of the same thing. No offense intended, but you are no prophet, seer, and revelator. There is room for divergent thought and other points of view in the church.

I believe Brigham Young is innocent of any wrongdoing and that for His own reasons -- which I believe to be the combination of an Abrahamic test and the Lord seeking to obtain a greater good through cursing (a frequently repeated scriptural theme) -- God inspired the prophet to institute the ban. I have presented what I believe is a good and reasonable case that exonerates President Young. In the meantime, many here seem to want to throw a prophet seer and revelator under the bus (another frequent scriptural theme). If you feel comfortable going hammer and tong at the Lord's anointed, you have the agency to do so.

I also believe the powerfully received 1978 revelation genuinely lifted a genuine ban that was instituted by God in His own mysterious economy (perhaps, at least in part, as a test to see who will have the faith and testimony to stand by the Lord's anointed in the 21st century when the going gets tough). Meanwhile, I believe President Young and those who followed him by continuing to uphold the ban are innocent, and that God will powerfully exonerate all of them on the judgment day.

Over the years, I've come to realize I never ended up wrong when I chose to give the prophets he benefit of the doubt and in the year 2014 I choose to stand by the prophets and believe them when they say a real ban was lifted by real revelation. You seem to choose otherwise. But no matter what path we choose to follow on this matter, each of us will have to live with the consequences that will inevitably follow.

Edited October 2, 2014 by teddyaware

[HappyJackWagon]

 

If you feel comfortable going hammer and tong at the Lord's anointed, you have the agency to do so. Meanwhile. I believe President Young and those who followed him and continued the ban are innocent and that God will exonerate them on the judgment day.

What you don't realize is that we are merely following the lead of the current prophets. The essay "threw" BY under the bus and we're agreeing with them.

 

Also, I don't think you recognize how offensive and hurtful the curse language is especially after the church has disavowed the theories that blacks or any other race are disfavored of God in any way. Frankly, I can't understand why you would defend it. Run from it. Put it behind you like the church is trying to do. There's no need to hold on to the racist teachings of the past.

[Shadrak]

Every fast Sunday I hear all kinds of people stand up say they know things that I know they really don't know at all. They might believe it, even very firmly. But they do not know it despite using that word. Granted, the word does have a slightly different meaning in the Mormon lexicon. Nevertheless, I do not believe Brigham Young knew any such thing - and the church has clearly disavowed that particular aspect associated with the ban.

Equating what is said by lay members on Sundays to a definitive declaration by a prophet is a stretch. Imagine if Tom Monson used these words in a speech, "If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this..." does it matter what comes next? From this language, is he not speaking as a prophet and, by definition, by revelation? Only with the privilege of hindsight, the approval of current GAs, and obviously socially unacceptable position of the doctrine can you say, "I don't believe he knew any such thing."

 

Use proper names of religious leaders.

[HappyJackWagon]

Equating what is said by lay members on Sundays to a definitive declaration by a prophet is a stretch. Imagine if Tom Monson used these words in a speech, "If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this..." does it matter what comes next? From this language, is he not speaking as a prophet and, by definition, by revelation? Only with the privilege of hindsight, the approval of current GAs, and obviously socially unacceptable position of the doctrine can you say, "I don't believe he knew any such thing."

We can never know what someone else does or doesn't know though we may have opinions.

 

The problem with this statement from BY is that he was acting as territorial governor speaking to the legislature. I find it highly probable that BY didn't distinguish much between his power as governor and that of prophet, BUT this is hardly a prophetic venue. It would be different if he were speaking to the legislature as the prophet, not the civil leader.

 

Also, prophets and apostles share opinions and testimonies about many things. It doesn't mean they received a revelation.

[Boanerges]

Oh, my goodness, gracious!  The cloak of relative anonymity that enables you to pass such an astounding judgment on your fellow Saints must be comfortable, indeed!  Have you marked 1 Samuel 16:7 thus in your Scriptures? "The Lord Boanerges seeth not as man the Lord seeth; for man The Lord looketh upon the outward appearance, but the Lord Boanerges looketh upon the heart"?

Your self righteousness and quoting scripture puts you in no position to call me to repentance. The above reference damns you as much as it does me, for you cannot look upon my heart, either. Because you live in a world of denial does not make what I said untrue - there are many who testify of things they really do not know - NONE of us know. Some of us believe very strongly, but none of us know. I choose to follow the prophet (and his fellow apostles) when it comes to use of the word know - in testimony I use it as seldom as he does.

 

Both of you knock it off.

[Shadrak]

We can never know what someone else does or doesn't know though we may have opinions.

The problem with this statement from BY is that he was acting as territorial governor speaking to the legislature. I find it highly probable that BY didn't distinguish much between his power as governor and that of prophet, BUT this is hardly a prophetic venue. It would be different if he were speaking to the legislature as the prophet, not the civil leader.

Also, prophets and apostles share opinions and testimonies about many things. It doesn't mean they received a revelation.

Does it matter where a prophet speaks if he declares he's speaking as a prophet? BY is the favorite whipping boy of modern mormons for his many outlandish statements (while at the same time quoting him as an authority when it suits them), but how does one in the present determine when a current prophet/apostle is speaking outlandish things? If one publicly says so, they are apostate. Only in the comfort of hindsight can lay members, such as us, disavow a prophets words (but only some of them).

If a prophet declares he's speaking as a prophet, we are supposed to discern it's only opinion? I highly doubt many in 1852-1978 thought this was only opinion. We only think it was opinion because it doesn't jive with current social norms (which didn't come through prophetic revelation but progressive enlightenment).

[Senator]

Can anyone tell that this is not a revelation spoken by a prophet?

 

Yes.  This statement is wrought with several egregious problems.

 

"If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off."

[Kenngo1969]

Your self righteousness and quoting scripture puts you in no position to call me to repentance. The above reference damns you as much as it does me, for you cannot look upon my heart, either. Because you live in a world of denial does not make what I said untrue - there are many who testify of things they really do not know - NONE of us know. Some of us believe very strongly, but none of us know. I choose to follow the prophet (and his fellow apostles) when it comes to use of the word know - in testimony I use it as seldom as he does.

No self-righteousness was intended.  Yes, it does seem to me as though you are being unduly judgmental of your fellow Saints, and it does seem to me that you're employing circular logic in a sense:  on the one hand, you claim the ability to know the hearts of numerous other people, and yet you claim, on the other hand, that they cannot know what they say they know.  And if quoting scripture is a bad thing, I'll always plead guilty.  It's impossible for me to know for sure, but I think you are using an unduly narrow definition of the word "know."  That's what I think.  Your mileage may vary; to each, his or her own.

[Kenngo1969]

Not to butt into your debate Ken but I think the argument is that the "policy" was racist.  

Butt away!  Emphasis on the word argument.  There are those who read the most recent statement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its history vis-a-vis race as a repudiation of the Priesthood restriction itself, and there are those who read it as a repudiation of the explanations surrounding the restriction.  Others may argue the point, but I think it was the latter.  While I know that President David O. McKay called the restriction a policy, the question I have is this: Generally, the only thing necessary to effect a change in policy is an addition or change to a Handbook and an announcement (in the Ensign, Church News, letter from the First Presidency read over the pulpit, what have you) that the policy has changed. Not so in this case.  Perhaps the simple reason for that is that the Lord knew that recalcitrant Brethren would not have gone along with anything short of a Declaration canonized in Scripture.  If so, so be it; but Official Declaration 2 is decidedly different from how a mere change in policy usually is enacted.

[juliann]

  Tom Monson

  I'm beginning to get the impression that we have a troll tag team that can't even hold the act together for one thread.  No score above 4 for this dismal performance!