Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[CV75]

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.

I'm not making that assumption, only that things change, and if something "doesn't matter," it is neither false nor true; it is neutral. If there is no opposing force, it is meaningless until or unless the light changes. If a tree falls in a dark forest, is it a pleasant or an unpleasant image?

 

More or less light will change the significance of a principle with regards to being "true" or "false." For example, prior teachings are false when we have greater light in the new teachings, but they were not necessarily false to begin with.

 

Yes, a spiritual dimension to the definitions of "true" and "false" and "neutral" should be considered in these discussions. I'm just popping in today so I'll have to be brief. But grace is one dimension; the "government of heaven" is another, as in Joseph Smith's quote: “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right [or neutral, or inconsequential] under another…”

 

His follow-up remark, "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." can be adapted as follows:

 

"Whatever God allows is inconsequential to His truth, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”

[teddyaware]

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.

Why should you loathe the idea that the Church has to withdraw and protect certain sacred truths from time to time? Truth can be a very dangerous thing, and because of this fact leaders of the Church need to be wise stewards as to how and when sacred truths are disseminated. As the head of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, the Prophet Joseph Smith had many supernal truths revealed to him that he was not permitted to share, even with trusted associates:

"Would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am! would to God I could tell you what I know! but you would call it blasphemy, and there are men on this stand who would want to take my life." Joseph Smith; Life of Heber C. Kimball, p.33

 

The Apostle Paul found himself in a similar position when he longed to reveal to the saints of his day deeper knowledge and wisdom concerning the Son of God, but he was unable to do so because the members of the Church had not grown enough spiritually so as to be able to receive and digest the mysteries of godliness without harm...

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions (like what goes on on this discussion  board), are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3)

and again,

9 And being made perfect, he (Christ) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5)

The key ending this thread's controversy is found in the last verse: The reason why the deeper truths often cannot be revealed is because those who are spiritually immature (i.e. unable to properly discern between good and evil) will in their spiritual immaturity believe the deeper truths of God are evil and must be rejected as fraudulent. One need search no farther than celestial polygamy and the priesthood ban for validation of this principle. A great many of the spiritually immature, who are only able to digest 'milk,' consider both of these sacred components of the Restored Gospel to be evils that prove to their satisfaction that the Church is either false or off course. They judge the deeper mysteries of God to be evil, hence the need to retract or disavow certain sacred truths from time to time.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (3 Nephi 14)

Edited November 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[canard78]

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.

I said less aware, not unaware. How many members spent any time reading the work of the Tanners in the 1990s? Their books, or the pamphlets of the evangelicals (yes, we got them in UK too), would have been generally ignored or dismissed as "anti-Mormon lies."

These days, the difference is that we are not dependent on the spin of the critics. All three links are to original sources. In the 1990s the 1852 speech wasn't widely available, nor were the Journal of Discourse volumes and the statements/letters of the 1940s-1960s also weren't.

Also the difference recently is the detailed disavowal of 2013. This has brought into focus the contrasts in the position of today vs the statements of the past.

Finally, "kneejerk blather..." I've been on this board for about two years. This is an area that I've discussed previously and have been willing to engage with primary sources.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Um no. I was on my mission in the 90's and people were plenty aware of it. It just was not an issue.

[canard78]

Um no. I was on my mission in the 90's and people were plenty aware of it. It just was not an issue.

See above

[canard78]

Why should you loathe the idea that the Church has to withdraw and protect certain sacred truths from time to time? Truth can be a very dangerous thing, and because of this fact leaders of the Church need to be wise stewards as to how and when sacred truths are disseminated. As the head of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, the Prophet Joseph Smith had many supernal truths revealed to him that he was not permitted to share, even with trusted associates:

"Would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am! would to God I could tell you what I know! but you would call it blasphemy, and there are men on this stand who would want to take my life." Joseph Smith; Life of Heber C. Kimball, p.33

The Apostle Paul found himself in a similar position when he longed to reveal to the saints of his day deeper knowledge and wisdom concerning the Son of God, but he was unable to do so because the members of the Church had not grown enough spiritually so as to be able to receive and digest the mysteries of godliness without harm...

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions (like what goes on on this discussion board), are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3)

and again,

9 And being made perfect, he (Christ) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5)

The key ending this thread's controversy is found in the last verse: The reason why the deeper truths often cannot be revealed is because those who are spiritually immature (i.e. unable to properly discern between good and evil) will in their spiritual immaturity believe the deeper truths of God are evil and must be rejected as fraudulent. One need search no farther than celestial polygamy and the priesthood ban for validation of this principle. A great many of the spiritually immature, who are only able to digest 'milk,' consider both of these sacred components of the Restored Gospel to be evils that prove to their satisfaction that the Church is either false or off course. They judge the deeper mysteries of God to be evil, hence the need to retract or disavow certain sacred truths from time to time.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (3 Nephi 14)

But do you include the following as greater or lesser light? Have some or all of the following been done because we can't handle the truth?

- Overturning the black priesthood ban

- Disavowing the teachings that black skin is a sign of "curse of Cain/pre-mortal conduct"

- Approving of and allowing for inter-racial marriage

Did all of the above happen because we were too spiritually immature for the previous situation and doctrine to be kept in place?

[JLHPROF]

Why should you loathe the idea that the Church has to withdraw and protect certain sacred truths from time to time? Truth can be a very dangerous thing, and because of this fact leaders of the Church need to be wise stewards as to how and when sacred truths are disseminated. As the head of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, the Prophet Joseph Smith had many supernal truths revealed to him that he was not permitted to share, even with trusted associates:

"Would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am! would to God I could tell you what I know! but you would call it blasphemy, and there are men on this stand who would want to take my life." Joseph Smith; Life of Heber C. Kimball, p.33

 

The Apostle Paul found himself in a similar position when he longed to reveal to the saints of his day deeper knowledge and wisdom concerning the Son of God, but he was unable to do so because the members of the Church had not grown enough spiritually so as to be able to receive and digest the mysteries of godliness without harm...

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions (like what goes on on this discussion  board), are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3)

and again,

9 And being made perfect, he (Christ) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5)

The key ending this thread's controversy is found in the last verse: The reason why the deeper truths often cannot be revealed is because those who are spiritually immature (i.e. unable to properly discern between good and evil) will in their spiritual immaturity believe the deeper truths of God are evil and must be rejected as fraudulent. One need search no farther than celestial polygamy and the priesthood ban for validation of this principle. A great many of the spiritually immature, who are only able to digest 'milk,' consider both of these sacred components of the Restored Gospel to be evils that prove to their satisfaction that the Church is either false or off course. They judge the deeper mysteries of God to be evil, hence the need to retract or disavow certain sacred truths from time to time.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (3 Nephi 14)

 

You are referring to doctrinal knowledge that the prophets received but were instructed not to reveal as too sacred.

I am talking about doctrines that were revealed and then revoked because the people couldn't handle them.

Big difference.  If a truth restored from heaven has to be withdrawn, then a blessing is lost and it is tantamount to apostasy, whether minor or major.  If the people are not yet ready for a truth then God won't hold them accountable for it by restoring it to them.  But once a truth is restored in this last dispensation, it's not going anywhere.

[teddyaware]

You are referring to doctrinal knowledge that the prophets received but were instructed not to reveal as too sacred.

I am talking about doctrines that were revealed and then revoked because the people couldn't handle them.

Big difference.  If a truth restored from heaven has to be withdrawn, then a blessing is lost and it is tantamount to apostasy, whether minor or major.  If the people are not yet ready for a truth then God won't hold them accountable for it by restoring it to them.  But once a truth is restored in this last dispensation, it's not going anywhere.

The answer is simple. When polygamy, the priesthood ban and the more expanded version of the endowment were current features of the Church, the membership of the Church was mostly gathered away in the remote western frontier where they faithfully and humbly accepted all of these things as inspired and authentic components of the Restored Gospel. At first the saints were mostly left alone in the wilderness to practice their "peculiar" religion unmolested, but when the enemies of the Church (in fulfillment of the Saviour's warning), began trampling the sacred principle and practice of plural celestial marriage underfoot and then gathered an army to rend the Church to pieces, the Lord inspired President Woodruff to withdraw the sacred practice. So a previously accepted and openly practiced Gospel principle was withdrawn from the world stage.

When it comes to the priesthood ban, the Lord inspired His servants to end it in fulfillment of prophecy before it ever had the chance to became an all-consuming worldwide civil rights cause celebre. Nonetheless, the ban has become a cause celebre after the fact, and in response to the controversy the Church recently published an official letter that artfully established the legitimacy of the ban while simultaneously making it known to the world that the Church is stepping away from any of the previously offered explanations for the ban. So even if in the end it turns out that one of the previous explanations for the ban turns out to be true, for now, at least, the members of the Church no longer have to worry about why the ban was instituted, only that it was instituted and eventually lifted by revelation from God. But the fact of the matter is that if God caused His prophetic servants to institute and the uphold the ban for over 115 years, there must be some reason for its institution in the first place (I speak as a true blue Mormon); but God in wisdom is keeping the answer to himself (perhaps there are some alive who do know but keep their silence) so that enemies of the Church will not have the opportunity to trample sacred things under foot and wreak havoc upon the Church. Therefore, for a wise purpose the truth is being withheld.

As far as the changes in the endowment are concerned, those things are too sacred for me to comment upon. But the same principle of the withdrawal of the sacred and holy from the unprepared is still applicable.

Edited November 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[theplains]

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).

 

Why do believe that the LDS Church regards its own rejecting members as swine?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[teddyaware]

Why do believe that the LDS Church regards its own rejecting members as swine?

 

Thanks,

Jim

The answer to your question is found in the very post of mine that you quote,

"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."

 

So in my post I refer to the Latter-day Saints who are not ready to receive the deeper teachings of the Gospel as being the spiritually unprepared. Meanwhile, I personally reserve the expression swine to describe those vicious non-LDS people who enjoy trampling on those things that are sacred to the Latter-day Saints, love twisting their words, and who would rend the Latter-day Saints if they could get away with it.  

Edited November 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[canard78]

The answer is simple. When polygamy, the priesthood ban and the more expanded version of the endowment were current features of the Church, the membership of the Church was mostly gathered away in the remote western frontier where they faithfully and humbly accepted all of these things as inspired and authentic components of the Restored Gospel. At first the saints were mostly left alone in the wilderness to practice their "peculiar" religion unmolested, but when the enemies of the Church (in fulfillment of the Saviour's warning), began trampling the sacred principle and practice of plural celestial marriage underfoot and then gathered an army to rend the Church to pieces, the Lord inspired President Woodruff to withdraw the sacred practice. So a previously accepted and openly practiced Gospel principle was withdrawn from the world stage.

When it comes to the priesthood ban, the Lord inspired His servants to end it in fulfillment of prophecy before it ever had the chance to became an all-consuming worldwide civil rights cause celebre. Nonetheless, the ban has become a cause celebre after the fact, and in response to the controversy the Church recently published an official letter that artfully established the legitimacy of the ban while simultaneously making it known to the world that the Church is stepping away from any of the previously offered explanations for the ban. So even if in the end it turns out that one of the previous explanations for the ban turns out to be true, for now, at least, the members of the Church no longer have to worry about why the ban was instituted, only that it was instituted and eventually lifted by revelation from God. But the fact of the matter is that if God caused His prophetic servants to institute and the uphold the ban for over 115 years, there must be some reason for its institution in the first place (I speak as a true blue Mormon); but God in wisdom is keeping the answer to himself (perhaps there are some alive who do know but keep their silence) so that enemies of the Church will not have the opportunity to trample sacred things under foot and wreak havoc upon the Church. Therefore, for a wise purpose the truth is being withheld.

As far as the changes in the endowment are concerned, those things are too sacred for me to comment upon. But the same principle of the withdrawal of the sacred and holy from the unprepared is still applicable.

Thanks for expanding on this. It's a very interesting view point. In some ways there are elements I can agree with. I agree with a personalised curriculum that fits the individual. I potentially can believe in a God who teaches individuals what they need to progress and not always what is "absolutely" true.

That belief leads me to different conclusions than yours about LDS prophets and doctrine, but maybe that's the point.

I noticed you'd not replied to a couple of questions about this sub-thread in the topic. If you have the time or inclination I'd still welcome a reply to those.

To reply to your comment above. You say that the race ban was instituted by revelation and practised, by revelation, at a time and place (Utah) when it was safe to be "peculiar."

A few thoughts and questions:

- The other two (polygamy and temple endowment) can be traced to canonised 19thC revelations from Joseph Smith. The priesthood ban can-not. There is no 19thC evidence that the ban was started by revelation. Can you offer any?

- Polygamy and temple practice were not very safe ways to be "peculiar" in 1840s. In fact they were often causes for persecution but Joseph did them anyway, based on what he believes God had instructed. On the other hand, the race ban was not instituted by Joseph (despite later prophets teaching that he did, based on old and inaccurate assumptions).

- Some of the church's early persecution was for being progressive on the question. The 1833 printing press/book of commandments destruction was partly in response to an anti-slavery piece and Joseph was anti-slavery. He also ordained men of African descent. A introduction of a race ban in 1840s would have been unlikely to have been a cause for persecution. So why not introduce it then? My conclusion is that there was no revelation behind the ban at all. Brigham Young doesn't even make a claim that there was, never mind put one in writing.

You also say that you consider it possible that past explanations for the ban are true but now disavowed for the "spiritually immature." Did you see the Elder Oaks quote I shared earlier? Do you include him in that group or do you think he was pretending to be uncomfortable to give the disavowals more credibility?

[theplains]

So in my post I refer to the Latter-day Saints who are not ready to receive the deeper teachings of the Gospel as being the spiritually unprepared. Meanwhile, I personally reserve the expression swine to describe those vicious non-LDS people who enjoy trampling on those things that are sacred to the Latter-day Saints, love twisting their words, and who would rend the Latter-day Saints if they could get away with it.  

 

It seemed from reading your posts that you used the word "swine" to refer to all people (LDS

members and non-LDS members) who are spiritually unprepared to receive the deeper teachings

of the Gospel.  Maybe this large group might be in need of further classifications as 'bad swine' and

'good swine'. The 'good swine' being those who are not vicious non-LDS people who do not trample

and also the nice LDS people who do not trample. The 'bad swine' being those LDS members who

quietly trample and remain anonymous to the Elders and the ward.

 

Just a thought.

 

Regards,

Jim

[teddyaware]

Thanks for expanding on this. It's a very interesting view point. In some ways there are elements I can agree with. I agree with a personalised curriculum that fits the individual. I potentially can believe in a God who teaches individuals what they need to progress and not always what is "absolutely" true.

That belief leads me to different conclusions than yours about LDS prophets and doctrine, but maybe that's the point.

I noticed you'd not replied to a couple of questions about this sub-thread in the topic. If you have the time or inclination I'd still welcome a reply to those.

To reply to your comment above. You say that the race ban was instituted by revelation and practised, by revelation, at a time and place (Utah) when it was safe to be "peculiar."

A few thoughts and questions:

- The other two (polygamy and temple endowment) can be traced to canonised 19thC revelations from Joseph Smith. The priesthood ban can-not. There is no 19thC evidence that the ban was started by revelation. Can you offer any?

- Polygamy and temple practice were not very safe ways to be "peculiar" in 1840s. In fact they were often causes for persecution but Joseph did them anyway, based on what he believes God had instructed. On the other hand, the race ban was not instituted by Joseph (despite later prophets teaching that he did, based on old and inaccurate assumptions).

- Some of the church's early persecution was for being progressive on the question. The 1833 printing press/book of commandments destruction was partly in response to an anti-slavery piece and Joseph was anti-slavery. He also ordained men of African descent. A introduction of a race ban in 1840s would have been unlikely to have been a cause for persecution. So why not introduce it then? My conclusion is that there was no revelation behind the ban at all. Brigham Young doesn't even make a claim that there was, never mind put one in writing.

You also say that you consider it possible that past explanations for the ban are true but now disavowed for the "spiritually immature." Did you see the Elder Oaks quote I shared earlier? Do you include him in that group or do you think he was pretending to be uncomfortable to give the disavowals more credibility?

I appreciate your response.

I would bet that if one could get a truly candid answer from each of the 15 prophets, seers and revelators (something highly unlikely now that the official letter on the ban has been published) they would say it is their opinion that the ban most likely had something to do with the pre-existence but not necessarily with preexistent unworthiness or unfaithfulness. After all, it is a commonly held LDS belief that each of our lots in mortality stem, in large measure, from whom and what were in the pre-earth life.

It also needs to be understood that God's curses are very often blessings in disguise, calculated by Him to bring about greater good and blessings than might otherwise have been achieved if there had been no curse. The fall of man is the quintessential and most perfect example of a curse from God that is actually a blessing in disguise. In very fact, the fall of man is often called a curse in the scriptures, and it is by means of that very curse, one that has brought so much pain, misery and destruction into the world, that a far greater good is accomplished (eternal life and eternal happiness) in spite of the fall's many plainly obvious downsides. In fact, in the final analysis the fall of man is a far, far greater curse to have to bear than a temporary priesthood restriction. 

What will you say to God if in the end it turns out the priesthood ban was precisely one of these divine ordained curses that was actually a great blessing in disguise, and that far greater good was accomplished as a consequence of the curse than might otherwise have been achieved? That's exactly the way it will prove to be with the curse of the fall, so why not with the temporary priesthood ban? I could provide you with many possible reasons why what I say concerning the ban being a blessing in disguise could turn out to be true, but I've got to get ready to go to work (by the way, if you study the curse placed upon the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon, you will learn that that curse also proved to be a blessing in disguise).

Finally, it is well known that there are many revelations given to the leaders of the Church on file that have not been disseminated to the membership at large, and the revelation on the priesthood ban could be found among those unpublished revelations. At any rate, I'm not as bothered about the origins of the ban as you because for me its validity as a true Church doctrine is established by the fact that a revelation from God, as a promised fulfillment of prophecy, was required to lift the ban...

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color... (Official Declaration 2)

So if you want to continue to agonize and not come to peace over these things, that's your prerogative; but as for me, the Church and Restored Gospel have proven to be such great blessings in my life that I am always powerfully motivated to give the Church leaders the benefit of the doubt, and as a direct consequence of giving them the benefit of the doubt, my life has been richly blessed with the fruits of the Spirit.

Edited November 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Cute, Jim. Are you not one of the people whom the prophet Isaiah describes as making others offenders for a word? You now know darn well what I meant, especially after my clarification, but you just can't help yourself.

20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought. (Isaiah 29)

Edited November 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Popping in  again to pick up from yesterday RE: incorporating a spiritual dimension to the definitions of "true" and "false":

 

Using the teachings in Alma 32 where “true” is aligned with “real,” “false” can then be viewed as that which is not “real” or not “true”. That which is real stimulates personal enlightenment and understanding of the things of God (verses 34, 35). That which is false blocks these benefits, and that which “does not matter” hasn’t an effect one way or another. Something can be not true and still not be false; it can simply be neutral. I think the ban and the theories put forth to explain it fall into this category; it is hard to tell whether those who acted on it are, from an eternal perspective, blocked from the things of God (I suppose it depends on where their hearts were at the time).

 

The same goes for the Great Apostasy. There are points where the truth was twisted into falsehoods (i.e. the great and abominable church took away many precious parts of the gospel and the covenants). Those accountable must be damned (1 Nephi 22:13-14); in their case, these teachings are false. But these same teachings haven’t the same effect on those children of God who, without any other source of light for a knowledge of the truth, followed them (D&C 138:32). In their case, these teachings do not matter.

 

Now the ban did block certain people from certain ordinances for a short time, but not forever. It doesn't appear that the ban or its teachings have blocked anyone from exaltation, even for having come up with or taught them. In either case, the ban and related teachings are not “false.”

Edited November 6, 2014 by CV75

[Calm]

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.

Yes, thanks for answering for me, been busy and lots of interruptions past couple of days, forgot about this comment and didn't correct the misunderstanding so very glad to see it was done.

[canard78]

I appreciate your response.

I would bet that if one could get a truly candid answer from each of the 15 prophets, seers and revelators (something highly unlikely now that the official letter on the ban has been published) they would say it is their opinion that the ban most likely had something to do with the pre-existence but not necessarily with preexistent unworthiness or unfaithfulness. After all, it is a commonly held LDS belief that each of our lots in mortality stem, in large measure, from whom and what were in the pre-earth life.

I've waited a day or two to give it some thought. While I agree that your option is possible it's not one that I personally could accept.

I'm not sure quotes like the following work with you:

To those who have strayed because of doctrinal concerns, we cannot apologize for the truth. We cannot deny doctrine given to us by the Lord Himself. On this principle we cannot compromise. I understand that sometimes people disagree with doctrine. They even go so far as to call it foolish. But I echo words of the Apostle Paul, who said that sometimes spiritual things can appear as foolishness to men. Nevertheless, “the foolishness of God is wiser than men.”

Joseph B. Wirthlin

I suppose you could argue that it still boils down, in your definition to whether it is given or taken "by the Lord Himself."

Doesn't that still mean that ultimately a prophet can be teaching people an incorrect principle. Of course, your argument covers that because if they are disavowing or changing under God's direction then it boils down to accepting his will for the information He will (or won't) make available.

-snip-

What will you say to God if in the end it turns out the priesthood ban was precisely one of these divine ordained curses that was actually a great blessing in disguise,

I will simply refer to the evening in August 2013 and the morning in March 2014 (the latter being in Preston Temple celestial room) when I reached the prayerful conclusion that the ban was not divine.

If God tells me I made a false read of the spiritual experience (as many here might assume) then I will humbly try to explain that it was the same feeling and experience as all the other times when I have had significant answers to prayers.

If that's still not acceptable to Him then I will take the eternal consequences accordingly. We can all and each only act on our conscience and, if we believe in them, the spiritual indications we personally receive.

...and that far greater good was accomplished as a consequence of the curse than might otherwise have been achieved? That's exactly the way it will prove to be with the curse of the fall, so why not with the temporary priesthood ban? I could provide you with many possible reasons why what I say concerning the ban being a blessing in disguise could turn out to be true, but I've got to get ready to go to work (by the way, if you study the curse placed upon the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon, you will learn that that curse also proved to be a blessing in disguise).

Finally, it is well known that there are many revelations given to the leaders of the Church on file that have not been disseminated to the membership at large, and the revelation on the priesthood ban could be found among those unpublished revelations. At any rate, I'm not as bothered about the origins of the ban as you because for me its validity as a true Church doctrine is established by the fact that a revelation from God, as a promised fulfillment of prophecy, was required to lift the ban...

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color... (Official Declaration 2)

Note that the essay did not say revelation was required, only that they believed one was.

"...given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy..."

They also don't say there was a prophesy, only that BY had promised it.

"Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings."

What the essay doesn't mention is that BY's promise was not fulfilled as he predicted. He said blacks would receive the priesthood "...when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood..." Given many non-black men received the priesthood after 1978 then "all the rest" clearly hadn't yet.

Just because someone believes a revelation is needed to change a policy, doctrine or practice is not evidence that it was started by it.

If "Bishop Jones" calls a new relief society president without prayer or revelation at the end of his time as Bishop then his replacement, "Bishop Evans" might not know that it was done out convenience rather than inspiration. As a result Bishop Evans could still feel that prayer and inspiration is needed when he came to release and replace the RSP. The same principle can apply to the ban.

There were many false assumptions made by leaders and members about the ban, even by their own words:

In 1947 the first presidency, under the leadership of George Albert Smith said:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel."

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n6/mode/1up

If a prophet says a doctrine or teaching has been "never questioned" then we shouldn't be surprised to see lots of inaccurate assumptions surrounding it. It wasn't introduced by Joseph Smith either.

Sadly the ban seems to be surrounded by untrue assumptions. The evidence points to this even being the source of the ban's introduction.

So if you want to continue to agonize and not come to peace over these things, that's your prerogative; but as for me, the Church and Restored Gospel have proven to be such great blessings in my life that I am always powerfully motivated to give the Church leaders the benefit of the doubt, and as a direct consequence of giving them the benefit of the doubt, my life has been richly blessed with the fruits of the Spirit.

I am at peace with my conclusions about it.

I appreciate a place where I can discuss and explore the implications and evidences. I'm guessing you see this forum as a similar opportunity.

[teddyaware]

I've waited a day or two to give it some thought. While I agree that your option is possible it's not one that I personally could accept.

I'm not sure quotes like the following work with you:

Joseph B. Wirthlin

I suppose you could argue that it still boils down, in your definition to whether it is given or taken "by the Lord Himself."

Doesn't that still mean that ultimately a prophet can be teaching people an incorrect principle. Of course, your argument covers that because if they are disavowing or changing under God's direction then it boils down to accepting his will for the information He will (or won't) make available.

I will simply refer to the evening in August 2013 and the morning in March 2014 (the latter being in Preston Temple celestial room) when I reached the prayerful conclusion that the ban was not divine.

If God tells me I made a false read of the spiritual experience (as many here might assume) then I will humbly try to explain that it was the same feeling and experience as all the other times when I have had significant answers to prayers.

If that's still not acceptable to Him then I will take the eternal consequences accordingly. We can all and each only act on our conscience and, if we believe in them, the spiritual indications we personally receive.

Note that the essay did not say revelation was required, only that they believed one was.

"...given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy..."

They also don't say there was a prophesy, only that BY had promised it.

"Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings."

What the essay doesn't mention is that BY's promise was not fulfilled as he predicted. He said blacks would receive the priesthood "...when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood..." Given many non-black men received the priesthood after 1978 then "all the rest" clearly hadn't yet.

Just because someone believes a revelation is needed to change a policy, doctrine or practice is not evidence that it was started by it.

If "Bishop Jones" calls a new relief society president without prayer or revelation at the end of his time as Bishop then his replacement, "Bishop Evans" might not know that it was done out convenience rather than inspiration. As a result Bishop Evans could still feel that prayer and inspiration is needed when he came to release and replace the RSP. The same principle can apply to the ban.

There were many false assumptions made by leaders and members about the ban, even by their own words:

In 1947 the first presidency, under the leadership of George Albert Smith said:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel."

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n6/mode/1up

If a prophet says a doctrine or teaching has been "never questioned" then we shouldn't be surprised to see lots of inaccurate assumptions surrounding it. It wasn't introduced by Joseph Smith either.

Sadly the ban seems to be surrounded by untrue assumptions. The evidence points to this even being the source of the ban's introduction.

I am at peace with my conclusions about it.

I appreciate a place where I can discuss and explore the implications and evidences. I'm guessing you see this forum as a similar opportunity.

Hi there:

Don't have much time to respond at this time because I'm preparing to teach from Isaiah in Gospel Doctrine class tomorrow. I will get back to you and answer your thoughtful post sometime soon. Just one thought, though: I'm wondering if what the Lord was actually trying to tell you that day in the temple is that your very negative impressions of the ban is what was false and not that the ban itself (which was instituted for a wise purpose that will be disclosed in the future) was wrong?

[CV75]

I will simply refer to the evening in August 2013 and the morning in March 2014 (the latter being in Preston Temple celestial room) when I reached the prayerful conclusion that the ban was not divine.

If God tells me I made a false read of the spiritual experience (as many here might assume) then I will humbly try to explain that it was the same feeling and experience as all the other times when I have had significant answers to prayers.

If that's still not acceptable to Him then I will take the eternal consequences accordingly. We can all and each only act on our conscience and, if we believe in them, the spiritual indications we personally receive.

WHOOPS! I had to edit this quite heavily:

 

Then I think you can be just as open to the spiritual dimensions of “true” and “false” in addition to the mathematical and logical dimensions in how you presented the subject. For example, the ban doesn’t really matter, but the Book of Mormon always did. Not being divine is not necessarily the same as being “false,” but being divine is always “true.”

 

Not knowing if one doesn't know where to find the greater light does not condemn someone. While we are not saved in ignorance, neither are we condemned for it, (ignorance does not matter for there is no choice in it but light, knowledge, intelligence do matter, because exposure to them is when and how we can make our eternal choices).

 

The problem some have with personal revelation is that in all but the testimony of Christ and the testimonies He has commanded the saints to bear (and otherwise in none other than the scope of stewardship) it that it doesn't matter. It isn't supposed to matter outside the personal impact; that is what makes it so very precious. Personal revelation answers the question; the discussion is over; the thinking has been done (to borrow a phrase!).

 

The ban was obviously done away with by revelation for a reason, but that does not mean that it met the standard for “false doctrine” during those years in was in place.  Of course it does now, with OD2 in place. For the same reason, the justifications and explanations for it (both pro- and con-) during that period do not matter, either.

Edited November 9, 2014 by CV75

[canard78]

Hi there:

Don't have much time to respond at this time because I'm preparing to teach from Isaiah in Gospel Doctrine class tomorrow. I will get back to you and answer your thoughtful post sometime soon. Just one thought, though: I'm wondering if what the Lord was actually trying to tell you that day in the temple is that your very negative impressions of the ban is what was false and not that the ban itself (which was instituted for a wise purpose that will be disclosed in the future) was wrong?

 

Hi, hope the lesson goes well. I can understand why some members might not feel comfortable with my conclusions. We all see through the same "dark glass" and make decisions based on the information and experiences available to us. I'm at peace with the implications of mine.

[Pahoran]

I will simply refer to the evening in August 2013 and the morning in March 2014 (the latter being in Preston Temple celestial room) when I reached the prayerful conclusion that the ban was not divine.

Which experience, untestable by us, is not in the category of evidence. You may "refer" to it, but you cannot produce it for our inspection.

If God tells me I made a false read of the spiritual experience (as many here might assume) then I will humbly try to explain that it was the same feeling and experience as all the other times when I have had significant answers to prayers.

And I will humbly try to explain that, in my view, informed Latter-day Saints know that their private spiritual experiences are not binding upon anyone else.

Regards,

Pahoran

[canard78]

Which experience, untestable by us, is not in the category of evidence. You may "refer" to it, but you cannot produce it for our inspection.

And I will humbly try to explain that, in my view, informed Latter-day Saints know that their private spiritual experiences are not binding upon anyone else.

Regards,

Pahoran

Mark in your journals people... Pahoran, I genuinely agree with everything you've said.

I don't expect anyone to consider my personal conclusions to have any implications whatsoever on them. They are completely irrelevant to everyone but me.

To clarify, I wasn't trying to persuade people to my point of view based on that, I was just referencing it to answer a very specific and genuine question that was posed by teddyaware.

I'm more than happy to exclude those experiences from the broader discussion of the thread and to only discuss the historical and scriptural evidences available. Having said that, I think I've probably made all the points I'd want to and would be at risk of going back round in circles if the discussion continued.

[SeekerB]

Can either be really argued either way?

Please show the arguments for and against this statement:

1949: The position of Black people should be understood in the context of the doctrine that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has a determining effect on the conditions and circumstances of mortality

2013: Black skin does not reflect actions in a premortal life

While I agree that someone could argue either for or against the "curse" or "premortal" statements in 1949 OR in 2013.

I don't see how you could argue that BOTH the 1949 statement AND the 2013 statement being true.

If you can I'd be impressed to see how you manage that.

 

OK, I'll give it a try. I'm not saying this true, but I think it does make both the 1949 and 2013 statements true at the same time.

 

Every person born on earth comes here from the pre-existance. Suppose that those being born in 1949 and for a period both before and after could have been under a "curse" if you want to call it that.  Now fast-forward to 2013.  Suppose that by now, all those spirits under a "curse" have been born, but genetics mean that there are still black skinned people being born, but they are no longer under any curse.

Edited November 10, 2014 by SeekerB

[Tacenda]

The answer to your question is found in the very post of mine that you quote,

"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."

So in my post I refer to the Latter-day Saints who are not ready to receive the deeper teachings of the Gospel as being the spiritually unprepared. Meanwhile, I personally reserve the expression swine to describe those vicious non-LDS people who enjoy trampling on those things that are sacred to the Latter-day Saints, love twisting their words, and who would rend the Latter-day Saints if they could get away with it.

What are the deeper teachings?

[canard78]

OK, I'll give it a try. I'm not saying this true, but I think it does make both the 1949 and 2013 statements true at the same time.

 

Every person born on earth comes here from the pre-existance. Suppose that those being born in 1949 and for a period both before and after could have been under a "curse" if you want to call it that.  Now fast-forward to 2013.  Suppose that by now, all those spirits under a "curse" have been born, but genetics mean that there are still black skinned people being born, but they are no longer under any curse.

 

And those born in 1948 but still living in 2013? Which side of the curse do they fall on? Did their black skin, in 1948, reflect conduct in the pre-mortal existence? If so, how can it not do so in 2013? I don't think your explanation works.