Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[CV75]

This is about as black and white of an example you can get of the brethren promoting a false teaching. Yet there are still many here who for whatever reason can't admit that church leaders were wrong. What part of fallible do we not understand?

People only promote a false teaching when they are in opposition to teachings that have been revealed. As far as what goes on in this life, people can only do that when they are alive.

[canard78]

I guess it really doesn't matter how I can know, or can't/don't. I do know. But I can say that I know that the Holy Spirit has not revealed to any member that major things he has read in the church magazines or training manuals or heard at General Conference are actually a false teaching.

This statement is a great example of what the word "I know" means in a spiritual context.

When you say "I know" the only thing you can really mean is: "I assume."

You can't know what personal or spiritual experiences I or other members have had which confirms or contradicts the veracity of teachings in conference or Ensigns.

I'm not going to go into the full details here as there are plenty of people who seem to look for any opportunity to castigate. However, based on my own personal, spiritual experiences I can tell you that your statement of "I know" in my case is not accurate. I have had experiences which are exactly what you say is not possible.

[USU78]

This is about as black and white of an example you can get of the brethren promoting a false teaching. Yet there are still many here who for whatever reason can't admit that church leaders were wrong. What part of fallible do we not understand?

 

Your premise fails on a couple of grounds.

 

First of, the actual teaching/doctrine was that subSaharan blacks were barred from holding the Priesthood until 1978.  Everything else was commentary, dictum if you will, attached to the teaching/doctrine.  The reasons for the WoW that people put out there are not the same thing as the WoW, is another example.  The reasons people might put out there for the teaching/doctrine can be flat out wrong without affecting the teaching/doctrine itself.

 

Second, you work on the assumption of infallibility.  This is a fundamentalist notion that no prophet or apostle asserts, especially not JSJr or BY.

[canard78]

A principle only becomes false after two conditions are met: 1) the light and intelligence of a true principle shines on the scene to replace it and 2) the principle persists in our minds and actions in opposition to the truth.

The implementation of the restriction cannot be traced to a rejection of or opposition to some previously specific practice allowing it (some may have been ordained previously, but the restriction was not in rebellion against that), but the removal of the restriction can be attributed to new light and knowledge. Where there was no light (true principle) present, neither the restriction nor the theories that were advanced for it can be said to be in opposition to it (or false), since something that isn’t evident cannot be opposed. Until it is used to oppose truth, a principle doesn’t really matter.

For example, Peter wasn’t chastised until he questioned or opposed the lifting of the restriction in his day. We tend to credit the Reformers for the light they could manage to share in an Apostasy they did not create.

This is why Elder McConkie spends a couple of paragraphs to discourage people from focusing on what doesn’t matter (http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570), and this attitude is reflected in the Race and Priesthood article. He also speaks of slivers of light and particles of darkness, which keep things in perspective with regards to our receiving light and intelligence line upon line, and which pale in comparison to what builds as the Restoration progresses.

That said, there are still many false notions that oppose the current light and knowledge our prophets stand for, in the name of change.

You're assuming of course that as things change, the light or truth increases. How do you know?

Your definition of that which is false (or untrue, to take out the intent to deceive) seems like one you've made up for your own purposes. Can you provide any source for your slightly convoluted definition of what constitutes an untrue teaching? It's not in any dictionary I know of.

[canard78]

Your premise fails on a couple of grounds.

First of, the actual teaching/doctrine was that subSaharan blacks were barred from holding the Priesthood until 1978. Everything else was commentary, dictum if you will, attached to the teaching/doctrine. The reasons for the WoW that people put out there are not the same thing as the WoW, is another example. The reasons people might put out there for the teaching/doctrine can be flat out wrong without affecting the teaching/doctrine itself.

Second, you work on the assumption of infallibility. This is a fundamentalist notion that no prophet or apostle asserts, especially not JSJr or BY.

So when a prophet describes a church position as "revealed doctrine" and the reasons for it as "doctrine," should we simply make the assumption that they don't really mean "revealed doctrine" and instead just mean "commentary"

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

By the way, you claim that the black priesthood and temple ban was doctrine. Would you care to point to any revelation for introducing the ban?

I don't see the church providing any in their latest essay.

It talks of "racial distinctions and prejudice" that were common at the time. It mentions that "Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination." It doesn't mention any revelation to start the ban so how can you feel confident that it was God's mind and will to introduce it? I don't believe it was. Both history and personal testimony lead me to that conclusion.

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

[USU78]

So when a prophet describes a church position as "revealed doctrine" and the reasons for it as "doctrine," should we simply make the assumption that they don't really mean "revealed doctrine" and instead just mean "commentary"

By the way, you claim that the black priesthood and temple ban was doctrine. Would you care to point to any revelation for introducing the ban?

I don't see the church providing any in their latest essay.

It talks of "racial distinctions and prejudice" that were common at the time. It mentions that "Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination." It doesn't mention any revelation to start the ban so how can you feel confident that it was God's mind and will to introduce it? I don't believe it was. Both history and personal testimony lead me to that conclusion.

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

 

Fundamentalism.

 

Lots gots it.

[The Nehor]

You're assuming of course that as things change, the light or truth increases. How do you know?

 

Via my seerstone. Duh.

[Pahoran]

It talks of "racial distinctions and prejudice" that were common at the time. It mentions that "Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination." It doesn't mention any revelation to start the ban so how can you feel confident that it was God's mind and will to introduce it? I don't believe it was. Both history and personal testimony lead me to that conclusion.

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

 

Canard, you keep arguing from your "personal testimony" as though it should carry some evidentiary weight for anyone else.

 

But it does not.

 

Given that your "personal testimony" tells you that Elder Holland's talk about those who want an "easy" God was "uninspired," and given that your "personal testimony" therein is flat-out wrong, I think it would be wise for you to drop that line of argument.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited November 4, 2014 by Pahoran

[canard78]

Fundamentalism.

Lots gots it.

This doesn't really mean anything. Why not engage with what I'm saying and, if you disagree, give some reasoning.

Was the black ban based on revelation of not? How is that question fundamentalism?

[USU78]

This doesn't really mean anything. Why not engage with what I'm saying and, if you disagree, give some reasoning.

Was the black ban based on revelation of not? How is that question fundamentalism?

 

When you keep asserting and reasserting the same thing, why should you expect a substantively different response.

 

Fact is, you cannot hold two even arguably different thoughts in your head at the same time; how could one expect you to synthesize two apparently antithetical thoughts.

 

Abram knows he should not kill, especially ritual killing of eldest sons.

Abram gets commanded to kill ritually his eldest son.

 

Solve that dilemma, and the Priesthood Ban is easy.

 

You cannot solve it, apparently.  Your fundamentalist marriage to black/white, either/or propositions prevent you from becoming a follower of Abraham or his Mighty Descendent.

 

So . . . your attempt to move the goal line is irrelevant to the overall point here.

[canard78]

Canard, you keep arguing from your "personal testimony" as though it should carry some evidentiary weight for anyone else.

But it does not.

Given that your "personal testimony" tells you that Elder Holland's talk about those who want an "easy" God was "uninspired," and given that your "personal testimony" therein is flat-out wrong, I think it would be wise for you to drop that line of argument.

Regards,

Pahoran

You have no evidence of any greater significance than mine that Elder Holland was inspired. If you believe he was inspired then the only support you have for that conclusion is your own personal testimony.

I simply included mention of my personal testimony because others (CV75 in particular who I was replying to) keep giving their own personal testimony that I am wrong.

If you want to discuss only history and logical reasoning and leave "personal testimony" out of the discussion then I'd be delighted, as long as you leave yours out too.

Can you provide a credible answer to the question I've raised about the doctrines stated by the 1949 first presidency which have now been disavowed? Given you're replying to my post about the black priesthood ban can you show me any evidence for the ban being an inspired decision. The evidence I see (personal testimony or not) is that it was not.

[canard78]

When you keep asserting and reasserting the same thing, why should you expect a substantively different response.

Fact is, you cannot hold two even arguably different thoughts in your head at the same time; how could one expect you to synthesize two apparently antithetical thoughts.

Abram knows he should not kill, especially ritual killing of eldest sons.

Abram gets commanded to kill ritually his eldest son.

Solve that dilemma, and the Priesthood Ban is easy.

You cannot solve it, apparently. Your fundamentalist marriage to black/white, either/or propositions prevent you from becoming a follower of Abraham or his Mighty Descendent.

So . . . your attempt to move the goal line is irrelevant to the overall point here.

I do keep arguing and asserting it because no-one has provided a valid argument against it yet.

Are you saying that you think God taught the prophet of the 1940s that black skin was a curse and that it was a reflection of their conduct in pre-mortal existence (even though it actually isn't)? You also believe that a few decades later God taught different prophets the opposite message? Why? For what purpose?

Doesn't that mean that God could be teaching prophets today things that you and the prophet assume to be true (as did the 1940s prophet... erroneously it turns out) but is not actually true? Why would God teach an untrue principle to a prophet and then, a few years later, teach the opposite?

[JLHPROF]

I do keep arguing and asserting it because no-one has provided a valid argument against it yet.

 

That's because there really isn't one.  There are only two options.  Either the early prophet was wrong for some reason or the later prophet was wrong for some reason.  They cannot both be doctrinally correct and disagree 100% on a doctrine.

Are you saying that you think God taught the prophet of the 1940s that black skin was a curse and that it was a reflection of their conduct in pre-mortal existence (even though it actually isn't)? You also believe that a few decades later God taught different prophets the opposite message? Why? For what purpose?

 

The only viable argument is that these are opinions.  The prophet of the 1940s had his doctrinal opinions.  The prophet of the 1980s had his doctrinal opinions.  One of them matches up with the revelation on record in OD2.

Doesn't that mean that God could be teaching prophets today things that you and the prophet assume to be true (as did the 1940s prophet... erroneously it turns out) but is not actually true? Why would God teach an untrue principle to a prophet and then, a few years later, teach the opposite?

 

NO.  GOD could NOT be teaching things that are false.  The prophet today could be mistakenly teaching their own opinion, but God certainly couldn't be teaching falsehoods.

[omni]

You're assuming of course that as things change, the light or truth increases. How do you know?

Your definition of that which is false (or untrue, to take out the intent to deceive) seems like one you've made up for your own purposes. Can you provide any source for your slightly convoluted definition of what constitutes an untrue teaching? It's not in any dictionary I know of.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth, er fingers...

[omni]

 

Your premise fails on a couple of grounds.

 

First of, the actual teaching/doctrine was that subSaharan blacks were barred from holding the Priesthood until 1978.  Everything else was commentary, dictum if you will, attached to the teaching/doctrine.  The reasons for the WoW that people put out there are not the same thing as the WoW, is another example.  The reasons people might put out there for the teaching/doctrine can be flat out wrong without affecting the teaching/doctrine itself.

 

 

 

There is as much support for the doctrine/teaching of the priesthood ban as there is for the reasons behind it.  Neither have scriptural support, neither enjoy the support of a recorded revelation, and both were purpetuated by a number of prophets for generations.  As Canard has shown, we have a written statement by the First Presidency confirming that the now errant reason for the ban was in fact taught as doctrine.  It doesn't get a whole lot more official than that. 

 

Second, you work on the assumption of infallibility.  This is a fundamentalist notion that no prophet or apostle asserts, especially not JSJr or BY.

 

 

Read my post again, I never claim infallibility - in fact just the opposite.

[teddyaware]

 

I do keep arguing and asserting it because no-one has provided a valid argument against it yet.

 

That's because there really isn't one.  There are only two options.  Either the early prophet was wrong for some reason or the later prophet was wrong for some reason.  They cannot both be doctrinally correct and disagree 100% on a doctrine.

Are you saying that you think God taught the prophet of the 1940s that black skin was a curse and that it was a reflection of their conduct in pre-mortal existence (even though it actually isn't)? You also believe that a few decades later God taught different prophets the opposite message? Why? For what purpose?

 

The only viable argument is that these are opinions.  The prophet of the 1940s had his doctrinal opinions.  The prophet of the 1980s had his doctrinal opinions.  One of them matches up with the revelation on record in OD2.

Doesn't that mean that God could be teaching prophets today things that you and the prophet assume to be true (as did the 1940s prophet... erroneously it turns out) but is not actually true? Why would God teach an untrue principle to a prophet and then, a few years later, teach the opposite?

 

NO.  GOD could NOT be teaching things that are false.  The prophet today could be mistakenly teaching their own opinion, but God certainly couldn't be teaching falsehoods.

 

There is a third viable option and that is that because a great many of members of the Church at large can no longer accept the earlier truths taught by the General Authorities, the Church has now disavowed and withdraw those earlier truths as per the Lord's warning to not cast pearls before swine (I do realize the expression casting pearls before swine is a bit extreme in this instance. Nevertheless, the principle of withdrawing sacred truths from the spiritually unprepared is directly applicable). The precedent of the Church disavowing teachings that are too sacred to continue to publicly espouse is testified to by Terryl L. Givens in his book 'Viper on the Hearth,' published in 2013:

"Mormonism’s most inflammatory doctrines were revealed late in Smith’s career (his teachings on the plurality of gods came only months before his death in 1844) or were in fact disavowed until the saints were presumably safe in their Utah exile (where polygamy was first publicly acknowledges in 1852)."

 

This withdrawal of sacred truth is precisely what happened in the 1980's when the Church leaders, no doubt at the Lord's behest, withdrew sacred  portions of the temple endowment because too many spiritually unprepared members of the Church were complaining that they could no longer deal with the emotional stress they were experiencing during their visits to the temple, and this because these folks were too spiritually immature to understand the deeper meaning hidden behind the outward forms of the ordinance.

 

God's deeper truths always have been and always will be unpopular with the worldly wise outside of the Church, as well as with the spiritually immature within the Church who are wanting when it comes to possessing the ability to receive personal revelation. Alma explains this sacred principle perfectly:

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.

A knowledge of the scriptures could put an end to this seemingly endless controversy, but because this subject is being debated by means of human wisdom, outside of the deeper wisdom found in the Standard Works, the debate will just continue to go around and around ad nauseam.

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

There is a third viable option and that is that because a great many of members of the Church at large can no longer accept the earlier truths taught by the General Authorities, the Church has now disavowed and withdraw those earlier truths as per the Lord's warning to not cast pearls before swine (I do realize the expression casting pearls before swine is a bit extreme in this instance. Nevertheless, the principle of withdrawing sacred truths from the spiritually unprepared is directly applicable). The precedent of the Church disavowing teachings that are too sacred to continue to publicly espouse is testified to by Terryl L. Givens in his book 'Viper on the Hearth,' published in 2013:

"Mormonism’s most inflammatory doctrines were revealed late in Smith’s career (his teachings on the plurality of gods came only months before his death in 1844) or were in fact disavowed until the saints were presumably safe in their Utah exile (where polygamy was first publicly acknowledges in 1852)."

 

This withdrawal of sacred truth is precisely what happened in the 1980's when the Church leaders, no doubt at the Lord's behest, withdrew sacred  portions of the temple endowment because too many spiritually unprepared members of the Church were complaining that they could no longer deal with the emotional stress they were experiencing during their visits to the temple, and this because these folks were too spiritually immature to understand the deeper meaning hidden behind the outward forms of the ordinance.

 

God's deeper truths always have been and always will be unpopular with the worldly wise outside of the Church, as well as with the spiritually immature within the Church who are wanting when it comes to possessing the ability to receive personal revelation. Alma explains this sacred principle perfectly:

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.

A knowledge of the scriptures could put an end to this seemingly endless controversy, but because this subject is being debated by means of human wisdom, outside of the deeper wisdom found in the Standard Works, the debate will just continue to go around and around ad nauseam.

 

 

 

 

I really don't know whether to agree with this or not.  I do agree this is a third possibility, but my opinions on it are mixed.

 

I loathe the idea that the Church has to withdraw truths revealed in the last dispensation because the people can't handle them.  To me that is a kind of apostasy.  This is supposed to be the last restoration period.

If to use your example, the Church was force to withdraw part of the temple endowment because it made people uncomfortable, then the endowment would be incomplete and some blessings/truths would be lost (temporarily).  That is exactly how the apostasy probably happened.

 

At the same time, there are instances (like plural marriage) where the truths have to be put on hold temporarily while people are prepared to live them.  This still removes blessings, but may not be true apostasy.

 

Either way I really don't think this applies to the teachings surrounding the priesthood ban.

Edited November 5, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

The priesthood ban certainly wasn't unpopular with the world around it for most of the years of its existence.

[teddyaware]

The priesthood ban certainly wasn't unpopular with the world around it for most of the years of its existence.

As far as I have come to know, there was nothing at all about the early LDS Church that was popular with the world. So why in the world would non-LDS people applaud the highly unpopular LDS Church for denying some men ordinations into what they considered to be a fake priesthood established by a fake prophet? Can you supply any historical references to back up your claim, or are you just making an assumption?

[USU78]

As far as I have come to know, there was nothing at all about the early LDS Church that was popular with the world. So why in the world would non-LDS people applaud the highly unpopular LDS Church for denying some men ordinations into what they considered to be a fake priesthood established by a fake prophet? Can you supply any historical references to back up your claim, or are you just making an assumption?rly

 

I believe cal is referring to the utter lack of slams on the Church on the basis of the Priesthood Ban at any point prior to, at earliest, the late '50s/early '60s.

 

The Priesthood Ban, as a weapon, is of relatively new vintage.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I believe cal is referring to the utter lack of slams on the Church on the basis of the Priesthood Ban at any point prior to, at earliest, the late '50s/early '60s.

 

The Priesthood Ban, as a weapon, is of relatively new vintage.

It really wasn't even a big deal in the 90's. Not saying that some people didn't have issues with it. It is not the same as it is now though.

[canard78]

There is a third viable option and that is that because a great many of members of the Church at large can no longer accept the earlier truths taught by the General Authorities, the Church has now disavowed and withdraw those earlier truths as per the Lord's warning to not cast pearls before swine (I do realize the expression casting pearls before swine is a bit extreme in this instance. Nevertheless, the principle of withdrawing sacred truths from the spiritually unprepared is directly applicable). The precedent of the Church disavowing teachings that are too sacred to continue to publicly espouse is testified to by Terryl L. Givens in his book 'Viper on the Hearth,' published in 2013:

"Mormonism’s most inflammatory doctrines were revealed late in Smith’s career (his teachings on the plurality of gods came only months before his death in 1844) or were in fact disavowed until the saints were presumably safe in their Utah exile (where polygamy was first publicly acknowledges in 1852)."

 

This withdrawal of sacred truth is precisely what happened in the 1980's when the Church leaders, no doubt at the Lord's behest, withdrew sacred  portions of the temple endowment because too many spiritually unprepared members of the Church were complaining that they could no longer deal with the emotional stress they were experiencing during their visits to the temple, and this because these folks were too spiritually immature to understand the deeper meaning hidden behind the outward forms of the ordinance.

 

God's deeper truths always have been and always will be unpopular with the worldly wise outside of the Church, as well as with the spiritually immature within the Church who are wanting when it comes to possessing the ability to receive personal revelation. Alma explains this sacred principle perfectly:

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.

A knowledge of the scriptures could put an end to this seemingly endless controversy, but because this subject is being debated by means of human wisdom, outside of the deeper wisdom found in the Standard Works, the debate will just continue to go around and around ad nauseam.

 

You're right that this is a possibility, albeit with some fairly serious implications. You're suggesting this third possibility in response to my discussion with CV75 and JLHPROF about whether the 1949 first presidency were saying things that were either true or untrue in their doctrinal statement on race and the priesthood.

 

With that in mind, are you saying that the latest essay on race is, in fact, not really a disavowal? It's a pretend one? It's been created to make some members and non-members believe that God and the church have a different view on race than they did in the past when, in reality, God and his prophets were actually speaking truth back then (but are not really doing so now).

 

Does that mean that past prophets were right to say that:

 

- Black people were denied priesthood and temple access because they really are cursed and actually do carry the mark of curse of Cain and their skin colour really does reflect their "conduct" in the pre-mortal existence?

- Endogamy is God's preference and any marriage between black and white people is "repugnant" and "against God's rule" and "church doctrine."

 

Speaking of the priesthood ban being overturned, Elder Oaks said: "I couldn't identify with any of the explanations that were given." So given you suggest that "disavowals" are done to remove doctrines that are actually true but too difficult to accept, do you include Elder Oaks in your group of people who were too "spiritually immature/unprepared" to accept them?

[canard78]

It really wasn't even a big deal in the 90's. Not saying that some people didn't have issues with it. It is not the same as it is now though.

 

Maybe that's because in the 1990s people were less aware of what had been said and done in the 1850s, 1860s, or 1940s, 50s and 60s.

[canard78]

 

I do keep arguing and asserting it because no-one has provided a valid argument against it yet.

 

That's because there really isn't one.  There are only two options.  Either the early prophet was wrong for some reason or the later prophet was wrong for some reason.  They cannot both be doctrinally correct and disagree 100% on a doctrine.

Are you saying that you think God taught the prophet of the 1940s that black skin was a curse and that it was a reflection of their conduct in pre-mortal existence (even though it actually isn't)? You also believe that a few decades later God taught different prophets the opposite message? Why? For what purpose?

 

The only viable argument is that these are opinions.  The prophet of the 1940s had his doctrinal opinions.  The prophet of the 1980s had his doctrinal opinions.  One of them matches up with the revelation on record in OD2.

Doesn't that mean that God could be teaching prophets today things that you and the prophet assume to be true (as did the 1940s prophet... erroneously it turns out) but is not actually true? Why would God teach an untrue principle to a prophet and then, a few years later, teach the opposite?

 

NO.  GOD could NOT be teaching things that are false.  The prophet today could be mistakenly teaching their own opinion, but God certainly couldn't be teaching falsehoods.

 

 

Thanks JLHPROF. This is my view too. I agree that it essentially boils down to two prophets making statements of doctrine that utterly contradict. I've been trying to get my head around some of the other views on the thread claiming that both can be defended as true (at the same time).

 

Whether we accept teddyaware's explanation as being viable or not, either come to the same conclusion: one of the prophets made a doctrinal statement that is not true.

 

For me, personally, coming to that conclusion throws open a whole other list of questions about doctrinal statements. Are we still working with cases of the prophet's own assumptions or opinions? If it's possible in this doctrinal statement, then it's possible in other doctrinal statements.

[USU78]

Maybe that's because in the 1990s people were less aware of what had been said and done in the 1850s, 1860s, or 1940s, 50s and 60s.

 

Do you ever both to check anything before you post?

 

The Tanners were publishing this stuff during most of my lifetime, and other Godbeites carried the water before then.  And the evangelicals made sure there were copies in just about every parsonage library across the Christian, especially the protestant Christian world.

 

It's just that the race issues weren't an issue with most folks until the '70s, when it really ramped up.

 

Sheesh.

 

So invested in slamming BY that you just kneejerk blather whatever comes into your head.