Two New Ensign Articles Affirming Marriage Between A Man And A Woman

[DJBrown]

I don't know.  Did the Levites have a different skin color? Was that the basis for their Priesthood exclusivity?

 

Hopefully it ends with no Melchizedek Priesthood holders assuming that another worthy man shouldn't hold the priesthood because of their skin color.  President Hinckley's question and it's meaning seems pretty clear (English was his first language), so I don't know where any confusion would be coming from.

 

 

It seems to me that many are willing to throw a lot under the bus in order to claim that we understand God's will.  Included is not just the modern prophets preceding 1978, but the words of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, the words of the prophets in the Book of Mormon which state the Christ was first sent to those of Israel.  

 

The ban was placed upon those of African descent.  It is about lineage.  And the Priesthood was held in ancient times by those of certain lineages.  So it really is the same situation.  

Edited September 2, 2015 by DJBrown

[cinepro]

Back to the point of this thread, I think it's a fascinating view into the mindset of (some) current LDS. 

 

So John Dehlin made a prediction for 40 years out.  It's a prediction about the future.  Since he isn't claiming any supernatural basis for this prediction, it isn't a "prophecy" or some other type of predilection for which we need to give heed.  It's a simple, garden variety supposition about something that might happen decades from now.

 

But just as there is no way to prove a prediction correct before its time (unless it actually happens), there isn't a way to prove it wrong before its time.  The most you can say is that you don't think it will happen.  You can explain why.  If a "probability market" is opened to allow you to express your thoughts, you could bet against it.

 

So those who don't think it will happen are putting forth their best arguments for why this change won't happen, and those arguments all boil down to one simple fact:

 

It would be a huge, monumental change from current LDS doctrines, policies and teachings for this change to happen.

 

Those who think it could happen (even if it's a slim chance), are simply pointing out another simple fact:

 

Huge, monumental changes in LDS doctrines (including the definition of what is or isn't a "doctrine"), policies and teachings have happened in the past, and Church members abilities to foresee these changes hasn't been that great.

 

Sure, you can argue that this time it's different, this is something that really, really can't change (unlike those other things which some people thought couldn't or wouldn't change, but turns out they could).    But it seems silly to pretend that this is something that can be known with any surety.  All you can say is that this is what the LDS Church says now (and no one will disagree with you), but that really doesn't tell us what the Church will be saying or doing 40 years from now. 

 

So all you're doing is creating a historical record of how some LDS felt in 2015.  Which may be a valuable service for posterity, but it probably isn't worth getting too worked up over. 

[Gray]

You are leaving out information Gray. There is reason for the change and that is in the BoM. That he may command it at times and other times it is forbidden. Where is such a scripture for gay marriage?

 

Well that's the thing - there is no scripture that even addresses the topic of gay marriage. At least we have scripture forbidding the practice of polygamy, probably under most circumstances. 

[Gray]

Yeah and? It was restricted. Was that a mistake?

 

I don't think God explicitly commanded it. But it wasn't racist. One group from the tribe was chosen to do the priestly duties. That isn't anything close to racism. 

[Gray]

It seems to me that many are willing to throw a lot under the bus in order to claim that we understand God's will.  Included is not just the modern prophets preceding 1978, but the words of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, the words of the prophets in the Book of Mormon which state the Christ was first sent to those of Israel.  

 

The ban was placed upon those of African descent.  It is about lineage.  And the Priesthood was held in ancient times by those of certain lineages.  So it really is the same situation.  

 

The ban went a lot further than lineage. There is no single African lineage. Of course all of us have black ancestors, so the ban would have really restricted all of us if it had been implemented "correctly" 

[DJBrown]

I don't think God explicitly commanded it. But it wasn't racist. One group from the tribe was chosen to do the priestly duties. That isn't anything close to racism. 

 

And that group was a certainly family- or descendants of Aaron/Levi.  All others were forbidden.  How is that different than forbidding descendants of African ancestors from the Priesthood?

[Gray]

And that group was a certainly family- or descendants of Aaron/Levi.  All others were forbidden.  How is that different than forbidding descendants of African ancestors from the Priesthood?

 

First of all, it wasn't singling one race out for exclusion. Second of all, my understanding is that outsiders could convert and become Israelites. Presumably that would include the Levite tribe. Someone correct me if I'm wrong

Edited September 2, 2015 by Gray

[cinepro]

It seems to me that many are willing to throw a lot under the bus in order to claim that we understand God's will.  Included is not just the modern prophets preceding 1978, but the words of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, the words of the prophets in the Book of Mormon which state the Christ was first sent to those of Israel.  

 

The ban was placed upon those of African descent.  It is about lineage.  And the Priesthood was held in ancient times by those of certain lineages.  So it really is the same situation.  

 

Sadly, it isn't the same situation.  This has been hashed out a bazillion times on this board, so I would recommend reviewing some of the past discussions. 

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/19307-blacks-and-the-priesthood/

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/44725-interesting-thoughts-on-blacks-and-the-priesthood/

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/50098-withholding-the-priesthood-from-blacks/

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/27607-blacks-and-the-mormon-priesthood/

 

 

But as I've said before, it doesn't take much to figure out that the Priesthood Ban didn't come from God.  All you have to do is think about it for about...10 seconds. 

 

Over the years, supporters of the "divine theory" for the origin of the Priesthood Ban on black members of the Church (including female members not being able to attend the Temple or be married therein) have generally drifted towards two different theories. One explanation involves a curse brought upon a race because of the actions of an ancient ancestor. The other involves theorizing about unknown events in the pre-mortal existence being the cause.

Both of these theories are silly, because they just don't work.

The ancient ancestor theory doesn't work based on population genetics. Namely, the intermingling of peoples would cause such a curse to quickly spread throughout the entire world (with the exception of totally isolated tribes). Thousands of years later, the "blood" of the cursed race would run through the veins of just about everyone alive.

The "pre-mortal curse" seems unlikely based on the way the ban was implemented and removed. The most logical way to "ban" someone from the priesthood is to send them to Earth in a location and era where there is no priesthood to begin with. If race is a spiritual characteristic, then it seems odd that the specific spirits who were effected by the ban (i.e. joined the Church after 1850, and after at least one black man had received the priesthood, and died before 1978) were also those same spirits meant to be banned from the priesthood. If race isn't a spiritual characteristic, then it is interesting that God chose the black African race to be signifiers of the ban at precisely the same time those people would be facing tremendous persecution.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It seems to me that many are willing to throw a lot under the bus in order to claim that we understand God's will.  Included is not just the modern prophets preceding 1978, but the words of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, the words of the prophets in the Book of Mormon which state the Christ was first sent to those of Israel.  

 

The ban was placed upon those of African descent.  It is about lineage.  And the Priesthood was held in ancient times by those of certain lineages.  So it really is the same situation.

A couple of items I'd like your thoughts on (and anyone else that clings to the idea the ban is from God):

 

Why does the church go out its way to avoid any implication of divine origin? For example, instead of saying "Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy" why not simply say a revelation was needed? Why spend fully a quarter of the essay explaining how Brigham Young was influenced by culture he was raised in? Why is that relevant if the ban was from God? Why say church records offer no clear insight into the origin of the ban if it was from God? Are you sure it is us that are throwing prophets under the bus? Why are you defending the ban as if it came from God when the church through its prophets is distancing itself from this position and is clearly agnostic on the issue?

 

Also for your consideration on the issue of Levites and the priesthood, from FairMormon:

 

 

Myth #3: The best example to explain blacks not having the priesthood comes from the Levites. The Levites were able to hold the priesthood, while others were not. This shows how God restricts people of certain lineages from receiving the priesthood just like he did with blacks.

While it may be true that Levites could hold the priesthood while others could not, it has little to do with this issue. The ancient practice where only one group is able to exercise the priesthood and work in the temple has little in common with modern times when everyone is able to hold the priesthood except for one group. Repeating this claim as an explanation doesn’t provide adequate support for the argument, and the claim completely falls apart when we recognize that Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt, William Smith, and Orson Hyde all ordained blacks to the priesthood in the 1830s and 1840s. The explanation is not helpful and can be hurtful.

So why couldn’t blacks have the priesthood? Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “I don’t know what the reason was. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.”(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm)

Men are slow to change in their beliefs. Even in the New Testament, Peter had to be lifted beyond his prejudice to sit and eat with the Gentiles. I hope we all take the time to familiarize ourselves with this topic and not perpetuate the hurtful and harmful myths that have been repeated for so long.

It is worth an hour or two of our time to read several articles on Mormonism and race, so we can help those around us. It will help us relating to African-Americans who join the Church. It will help us in teaching our children in such a way that they won’t make hurtful assumptions. It will help us in keeping our children from falling away as they learn about this past practice. Finally, it will help us in explaining our beliefs to those outside of our faith. It is not only simply worth our time to learn about black history, it is essential.

Edited September 2, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

And that group was a certainly family- or descendants of Aaron/Levi.  All others were forbidden.  How is that different than forbidding descendants of African ancestors from the Priesthood?

A couple of additional thoughts from you. The ban against black Africans extended beyond the priesthood. They could not receive endowments, temple blessings, serve in most leadership callings in the church and more. In many cases they were forced to sit in the back of the chapel and Elder Peterson even relates a story of a congregation that forbade a black family from attending altogether.

 

The Levites simply had authority to work in the temple. That's it. They worked for the salvation of everyone. No one was restricted from temple service or from temple blessings. 

 

Additionally most of the prophets (who assumedly had the priesthood) where not from Levi. Clearly the ban wasn't universal. The Nephites were not of the tribe of Levi and had the priesthood. The book of Mormon and the OT (see Jethro) allude to others with the priesthood of God, not just the tribe of Levi. Again the only things the Levites did with the priesthood was work in the temple and offer sacrifices. This is in no way analogous to the way the priesthood works today.

 

ETA: Perhaps the best analog would be the office of church patriarch which until it was dissolved was handed down in the Joseph Smith line. While this office was based on lineage, no blessings or other benefits were withheld from the church as a whole.

Edited September 2, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[cinepro]

And that group was a certainly family- or descendants of Aaron/Levi.  All others were forbidden.  How is that different than forbidding descendants of African ancestors from the Priesthood?

 

As others have pointed out (including, apparently, FairMormon!), unless you are somehow participating in this forum from the 1950's (perhaps using a SWAC computer linked to a wormhole), you really need to read study this issue, look at what the best current LDS scholars and General Authorities are saying, and sift through your thinking and make sure it is entirely doctrinally sound.

 

Also, buy Colgate stock!

Edited September 2, 2015 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

The only formal articulation of the Law of Chastity is in the temple, and no mention of gay marriage or anything close to it appears there.

 

The informal version(s) that appears in lesson manuals and talks currently defines polygamy as adultery. So it's clear that the law of chastity can be modified. 

The law of chastity is that no one will have sexual relations except with the person to whom one is legally and lawfully married. The Lord and His Church do not recognize homosexual relationships as marriages; ergo, homosexual behavior violates the law of chastity.

 

Your quirky attempt to redefine it holds no validity and is not binding on the Lord, His Church, the Latter-day Saints or me.

 

If you won't accept that from me, you can check with any of those who hold the apostolic office today and are thus authorized to speak for God on matters such as this. I'm confident they will tell you the same thing.

 

Meanwhile, review the quote from Elder Nelson in my sig line.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[DJBrown]

A couple of items I'd like your thoughts on (and anyone else that clings to the idea the ban is from God):

 

Why does the church go out its way to avoid any implication of divine origin? For example, instead of saying "Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy" why not say a ban was needed? Why spend fully a quarter of the essay explaining how Brigham Young was influenced by culture he was raised in? Why is that relevant if the ban was from God? Why say church records offer no clear insight into the origin of the ban if it was from God? Are you sure it is us that are throwing prophets under the bus? Why are you defending the ban as if it came from God when the church through its prophets is distancing itself from this position and is clearly agnostic on the issue?

 

Also for your consideration on the issue of Levites and the priesthood, from FairMormon:

 

I don't think the essay is necessarily saying that Brigham Young's actions were so influenced by society.  Another possibility is that the action or prohibition was God's will given the context of race relations in society.  In other words, is it possible that there would have been dangers to the church if no prohibition were in place in the days of such deep racism in our country?  Who knows.  But it is a possibility.  

 

I am defending the ban as possibly coming from God because I do not see a clear indication in any statements from recent prophets that anything but the theories to explain the ban were wrong.  And the very common instinct to justify dismissal of our current prophets on subject X,Y, or Z seem to be based very often on this idea that the prophets were wrong with race and priesthood.  

 

I think the FAIR response to the Levite comparison is weak.  Only people from certainly lineages were given the Priesthood in former times.  How is that not comparable to restricting the Priesthood to those not of African descent in modern times?

 

Consider the Book of Abraham:  " Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry."

 

Consider also the blessings promised to the Lamanites while the Nephites were destroyed. And what of the promises to Israel. Both the Bible and Book of Mormon speak of Christ visiting Israel first. And Christ's words in the New Testament regarding His being sent to Israel, not the gentiles?

 

What about Alma 13 speaking of the Lord calling and preparing high priests from the foundation of the world- according to His foreknowledge? Was He being unfairly biased for some people or groups?

 

"The first shall be last and the last shall be first." Racism or favoritism could be seen in any of these principles and scenarios.

 

To me it seems like we have to throw some of our canon, history, and prophets under the bus in order to please the politically correct teaching the God would never favor one person or group over another in any given time or place. Could it be that God has a perspective of things beyond ours and does things in a way that will benefit mankind most without fundamental racism, even though it may seem like it in the now?

 

Did God act unfairly with the widow when Elijah told her to give him her last food instead of keeping it for herself and her son? Is God biased against widows and orphans?

 

In my small mind, our faith is required in all of these scenarios- faith that God sees what we don't. Things that don't seem fair or logical or equitable. Do we really have to know everything?

[stemelbow]

I think it already obviously wrong. But if not, I want to hasten that day.

I think today's norm in the Church is wrong too.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think today's norm in the Church is wrong too.

Given the choice, I will always cast my lot with the prophets and apostles.

[ALarson]

The law of chastity is that no one will have sexual relations except with the person to whom one is legally and lawfully married. The Lord and His Church do not recognize homosexual relationships as marriages; ergo, homosexual behavior violates the law of chastity.

Where does that leave the plural wives (and husbands too) who lived polygamy in the early days of the church?  They were not legally married.

Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

The law of chastity is that no one will have sexual relations except with the person to whom one is legally and lawfully married. The Lord and His Church do not recognize homosexual relationships as marriages; ergo, homosexual behavior violates the law of chastity.

Legally and lawfully married homosexuals are out there, Scott. This is only helping Rock's prediction and claim of it's ahead of schedule. Give it time, even the most common of LDS will realize there is no harm in homosexual marriage. It'll be revelation in a sense, but it'll also just be a breaking down of our own presumptions.

 

Your quirky attempt to redefine it holds no validity and is not binding on the Lord, His Church, the Latter-day Saints or me.

 

If you won't accept that from me, you can check with any of those who hold the apostolic office today and are thus authorized to speak for God on matters such as this. I'm confident they will tell you the same thing.

 

Meanwhile, review the quote from Elder Nelson in my sig line.

[stemelbow]

Given the choice, I will always cast my lot with the prophets and apostles.

It's always the easy way to let the others decide for ya, although not always the smartest.

Edited September 2, 2015 by stemelbow

[DJBrown]

Sadly, it isn't the same situation.  This has been hashed out a bazillion times on this board, so I would recommend reviewing some of the past discussions. 

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/19307-blacks-and-the-priesthood/

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/44725-interesting-thoughts-on-blacks-and-the-priesthood/

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/50098-withholding-the-priesthood-from-blacks/

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/27607-blacks-and-the-mormon-priesthood/

 

 

But as I've said before, it doesn't take much to figure out that the Priesthood Ban didn't come from God.  All you have to do is think about it for about...10 seconds. 

 

Over the years, supporters of the "divine theory" for the origin of the Priesthood Ban on black members of the Church (including female members not being able to attend the Temple or be married therein) have generally drifted towards two different theories. One explanation involves a curse brought upon a race because of the actions of an ancient ancestor. The other involves theorizing about unknown events in the pre-mortal existence being the cause.

Both of these theories are silly, because they just don't work.

The ancient ancestor theory doesn't work based on population genetics. Namely, the intermingling of peoples would cause such a curse to quickly spread throughout the entire world (with the exception of totally isolated tribes). Thousands of years later, the "blood" of the cursed race would run through the veins of just about everyone alive.

The "pre-mortal curse" seems unlikely based on the way the ban was implemented and removed. The most logical way to "ban" someone from the priesthood is to send them to Earth in a location and era where there is no priesthood to begin with. If race is a spiritual characteristic, then it seems odd that the specific spirits who were effected by the ban (i.e. joined the Church after 1850, and after at least one black man had received the priesthood, and died before 1978) were also those same spirits meant to be banned from the priesthood. If race isn't a spiritual characteristic, then it is interesting that God chose the black African race to be signifiers of the ban at precisely the same time those people would be facing tremendous persecution.

 

Thanks for the lesson.  I am familiar with the history and theories that have been espoused.  I am not comfortable dismissing prophets after ten seconds of thinking.  

 

I have never pretended to understand the why behind the prohibition. I am just not comfortable rejecting prophets- past or present.  And it just seems too convenient to use the race and Priesthood issue as the basis for rejecting the prophets now.  Pick a policy or doctrine.  The fact that the issue is being used to undermine the prophets today is a red flag in my mind.

 

Should we dismiss all doctrines, practices, or policies that can be made to look "silly?"  That opens the door in a very bad way.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't think the essay is necessarily saying that Brigham Young's actions were so influenced by society.  Another possibility is that the action or prohibition was God's will given the context of race relations in society.  In other words, is it possible that there would have been dangers to the church if no prohibition were in place in the days of such deep racism in our country?  Who knows.  But it is a possibility.  

 

I am defending the ban as possibly coming from God because I do not see a clear indication in any statements from recent prophets that anything but the theories to explain the ban were wrong.  And the very common instinct to justify dismissal of our current prophets on subject X,Y, or Z seem to be based very often on this idea that the prophets were wrong with race and priesthood.  

 

I think the FAIR response to the Levite comparison is weak.  Only people from certainly lineages were given the Priesthood in former times.  How is that not comparable to restricting the Priesthood to those not of African descent in modern times?

 

Consider the Book of Abraham:  " Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry."

 

Consider also the blessings promised to the Lamanites while the Nephites were destroyed. And what of the promises to Israel. Both the Bible and Book of Mormon speak of Christ visiting Israel first. And Christ's words in the New Testament regarding His being sent to Israel, not the gentiles?

 

What about Alma 13 speaking of the Lord calling and preparing high priests from the foundation of the world- according to His foreknowledge? Was He being unfairly biased for some people or groups?

 

"The first shall be last and the last shall be first." Racism or favoritism could be seen in any of these principles and scenarios.

 

To me it seems like we have to throw some of our canon, history, and prophets under the bus in order to please the politically correct teaching the God would never favor one person or group over another in any given time or place. Could it be that God has a perspective of things beyond ours and does things in a way that will benefit mankind most without fundamental racism, even though it may seem like it in the now?

 

Did God act unfairly with the widow when Elijah told her to give him her last food instead of keeping it for herself and her son? Is God biased against widows and orphans?

 

In my small mind, our faith is required in all of these scenarios- faith that God sees what we don't. Things that don't seem fair or logical or equitable. Do we really have to know everything?

So the church says it doesn't know how the ban originated ("church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice"). No prophet or apostle in the last 20 years to my knowledge has defended the ban as divinely instituted. The church just published an essay over 2000 words long on the ban that goes out of its way to avoid calling the ban divine. Also telling, instead of comparing the ban to anything you just said (Levites, Abraham etc) the church spent about 500 words talking about the racist culture in America. 

 

To sum up, the church doesn't refer to linage in defending the ban. The church says it doesn't know if the ban was divine. Are you sure you want to keep defending what the church has abandoned?

[DJBrown]

So the church says it doesn't know how the ban originated ("church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice"). No prophet or apostle in the last 20 years to my knowledge has defended the ban as divinely instituted. The church just published an essay over 2000 words long on the ban that goes out of its way to avoid calling the ban divine. Also telling, instead of comparing the ban to anything you just said (Levites, Abraham etc) the church spent about 500 words talking about the racist culture in America. 

 

To sum up, the church doesn't refer to linage in defending the ban. The church says it doesn't know if the ban was divine. Are you sure you want to keep defending what the church has abandoned?

 

I am defending the prophets.  I don't pretend to understand the mind of God.  I just think people are a little too quick to dismiss the prophets on the basis of reason and cultural sensitivities.  Does it worry you that so many people are now using the race and the Priesthood issue to dismiss today's prophets on whatever issue they like?  This is becoming a very consistent thing- here and on other boards.  My point is that peoples' conclusions about the race and the Priesthood issue are a little hasty, in my opinion.  The church and its leaders have not rejected the ban.  They have rejected the theories that were used to support it.  The essay is simply being honest.  How does it "go out of its way to avoid calling the ban divine?"  It also seems to go out of its way to avoid calling the ban wrong, no?

 

And are we to use reason only to conclude that the ban is wrong?  Should we not look through the history of God's interactions with mankind for parallels? That only seems reasonable and logical to me.  I am not saying that this proves it.  It simply suggests that our generation shouldn't be so naive to think that we know everything.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I am defending the prophets.  I don't pretend to understand the mind of God.  I just think people are a little too quick to dismiss the prophets on the basis of reason and cultural sensitivities.

It's current prophets that are dismissing ("disavowing") the teachings of old Prophets and refusing to comment on whether or not the ban was divine. 

 

Does it worry you that so many people are now using the race and the Priesthood issue to dismiss today's prophets on whatever issue they like?

No. Do what is right let the consequence follow.

 

The church and its leaders have not rejected the ban.  They have rejected the theories that were used to support it.  The essay is simply being honest.  How does it "go out of its way to avoid calling the ban divine?"  It also seems to go out of its way to avoid calling the ban wrong, no?

This is true. The essay goes out of its way in its language to avoid implying in any way that the ban was inspired. They also do not call the ban uninspired. This is a marked change from 40 years ago when the ban was lifted. At that time, none of the justifications were disavowed, and the ban had divine origins. Elder McConkie only acknowledged that many were wrong on the timing. The prophets that lead the church have substantially changed their position and opinion over the last 40 years. They now appear to be agnostic on the issue on the divine nature of the ban, but unequivocal in the condemnation of past doctrine used to support the ban. 

 

And are we to use reason only to conclude that the ban is wrong?  Should we not look through the history of God's interactions with mankind for parallels? That only seems reasonable and logical to me.  I am not saying that this proves it.  It simply suggests that our generation shouldn't be so naive to think that we know everything.

Apparently not. If the church thought parallels were relevant wouldn't they include them in the essay, or in the new institute manuals? If the church is not defending it, perhaps you should stop as well?

Edited September 2, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[HappyJackWagon]

I am defending the prophets.  I don't pretend to understand the mind of God.  I just think people are a little too quick to dismiss the prophets on the basis of reason and cultural sensitivities.  Does it worry you that so many people are now using the race and the Priesthood issue to dismiss today's prophets on whatever issue they like?  This is becoming a very consistent thing- here and on other boards.  My point is that peoples' conclusions about the race and the Priesthood issue are a little hasty, in my opinion.  The church and its leaders have not rejected the ban.  They have rejected the theories that were used to support it.  The essay is simply being honest.  How does it "go out of its way to avoid calling the ban divine?"  It also seems to go out of its way to avoid calling the ban wrong, no?

 

And are we to use reason only to conclude that the ban is wrong?  Should we not look through the history of God's interactions with mankind for parallels? That only seems reasonable and logical to me.  I am not saying that this proves it.  It simply suggests that our generation shouldn't be so naive to think that we know everything.

Actually, I think it's a rather healthy change. The priesthood ban/racist theories issues helps to illustrate the issue of prophetic fallibility. Everyone admits to it in theory but no one wants to accept it in practice. This issue makes it real. It puts the role of prophet in perspective. Does it open a can of worms in the sense that people now look at the teachings of the prophets with more skepticism and caution? Yes, but that's a good thing since we're not supposed to rely on the arm of the flesh any way. We are supposed to rely on our own personal revelation and use the prophet as more of a guide instead of the word of God incarnate.

[stemelbow]

I am defending the prophets.  I don't pretend to understand the mind of God.  I just think people are a little too quick to dismiss the prophets on the basis of reason and cultural sensitivities.  Does it worry you that so many people are now using the race and the Priesthood issue to dismiss today's prophets on whatever issue they like?  This is becoming a very consistent thing- here and on other boards.  My point is that peoples' conclusions about the race and the Priesthood issue are a little hasty, in my opinion.  The church and its leaders have not rejected the ban.  They have rejected the theories that were used to support it.  The essay is simply being honest.  How does it "go out of its way to avoid calling the ban divine?"  It also seems to go out of its way to avoid calling the ban wrong, no?

 

And are we to use reason only to conclude that the ban is wrong?  Should we not look through the history of God's interactions with mankind for parallels? That only seems reasonable and logical to me.  I am not saying that this proves it.  It simply suggests that our generation shouldn't be so naive to think that we know everything.

To say the prophets and apostles might be wrong and are probably wrong about something is not saying we know everything. It's acknowledging based on history, that we are probably wrong about something and perhaps many things. To always side with the prophets and apostles, no matter what, is assuming they know what they are talking about all the time. But as history has shown, even aposltes and prophets have claimed to know the will of God, as per the reasons for the ban, at the very least, when they spoke presumptuously.

Acknowledging that is not saying I know everything. It's suggesting no one knows everything so its best we acknowledge that.

[DJBrown]

Actually, I think it's a rather healthy change. The priesthood ban/racist theories issues helps to illustrate the issue of prophetic fallibility. Everyone admits to it in theory but no one wants to accept it in practice. This issue makes it real. It puts the role of prophet in perspective. Does it open a can of worms in the sense that people now look at the teachings of the prophets with more skepticism and caution? Yes, but that's a good thing since we're not supposed to rely on the arm of the flesh any way. We are supposed to rely on our own personal revelation and use the prophet as more of a guide instead of the word of God incarnate.

 

Can you provide a single example of an individual or group who were blessed or sustained in not following a prophet or dismissing a prophet's teaching(s) in the scriptures?