rockpond Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 It would appear to me that those around B.Y. at the time thought it came from God. Should we also assume that the other apostles saw that Brigham Young was making this on his own and none of them questioned him on it and they were ok with it? If that would be the case, that would be far more serious than the ban itself. What other things could Brigham Young or any other prophet could do without revelation from God? I believe that the prophet can't lead the Church astray in part because God established certain checks and balances in the Church that would keep that from happening. The other apostles are not there just as cheerleaders or figure heads to go along with what any prophet says. I think that the apostles in BY's time as wells as the prophets and apostles that followed for the next century all thought the ban was of God. Time and time again they taught as much. I'm not sure what checks and balances were in place to prevent blacks from being denied access to the priesthood and temples. So for me, that was leading the church astray. 1
bluebell Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 24 minutes ago, rockpond said: My evidence is the LDS gospel topics essay on the matter. I believe BY thought it was of God. That seems obvious from his teachings. And I don't think he would have done it if he didn't think it was what God wanted. But he was wrong and the church went astray because of it. It seems we both agree that prophets can get doctrine wrong. The difference is that however wrong the doctrine might be, you don't and won't consider it leading the church astray. Anything they teach or command, you will follow because, as you've stated, it is impossible for them to lead us astray. That just doesn't make sense to me. Your beliefs on it don't make any sense to me either, so we can agree there. 1
Daniel2 Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 On 6/4/2016 at 8:00 AM, Bobbieaware said: BY THE WAY, I JUST GOT CALLED OUT BY THE MODERATORS FOR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR ON THIS THREAD. WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE AND HOW I'VE BEEN ABUSIVE SO THAT I DON'T REPEAT THE ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR. (Caps to get someone's attention) I don't believe you're being abusive, either. 1
Bobbieaware Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 On June 4, 2016 at 9:47 AM, bluebell said: Since we don't know where the ban came from, it's impossible to say. Looking back I think it may have had something to do with rockpond getting frustrated It took me too long to answer his questions in a manner he found satisfactory.
rockpond Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Looking back I think it may have had something to do with rockpond getting frustrated It took me too long to answer his questions in a manner he found satisfactory. I wouldn't call that abusive and I did not report you.
bluebell Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Looking back I think it may have had something to do with rockpond getting frustrated It took me too long to answer his questions in a manner he found satisfactory. Sorry for the confusion, I was talking to rockpond about the priesthood ban.
Jeanne Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 On 6/3/2016 at 6:16 PM, rockpond said: I must have missed that example. If BY was wrong regarding black people and, therefore, led the church into a century long denial of priesthood and temple ordinances to an entire race of people, how is that NOT leading the church astray? And if it was wrong..and in my opinion it was...what took God so long to fix that?
rockpond Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 10 minutes ago, Jeanne said: And if it was wrong..and in my opinion it was...what took God so long to fix that? My answer: Agency. Even prophets have their agency and if they are overly influenced by prejudices, God might not be able to get through to them.
Jeanne Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 1 minute ago, rockpond said: My answer: Agency. Even prophets have their agency and if they are overly influenced by prejudices, God might not be able to get through to them. Thank you. I am out of rep points but this is a good perspective. 1
Bobbieaware Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I wouldn't call that abusive and I did not report you. Now I'm really confused...
rockpond Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Now I'm really confused... Well, I wouldn't spend anymore brain power on it. Nobody here seems upset by anything you've written. The Mods have a tough job... they may have just made a mistake. 1
Jeanne Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Now I'm really confused... Seriously..this would drive me nuts..is there a reason that mods don't explain or give you a chance to make amends to one who may be offended? I don't envy their jobs here but this seems fair to address.
bluebell Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 6 hours ago, rockpond said: My answer: Agency. Even prophets have their agency and if they are overly influenced by prejudices, God might not be able to get through to them. I think this falls a part when we consider David O. McKay, who prayed to end the ban and believed he was told by the Lord that it was not time.
Bobbieaware Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: Seriously..this would drive me nuts..is there a reason that mods don't explain or give you a chance to make amends to one who may be offended? I don't envy their jobs here but this seems fair to address. Thanks, but I'm moving on and putting it behind me.😉 1
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I think this falls a part when we consider David O. McKay, who prayed to end the ban and believed he was told by the Lord that it was not time. I don't think it falls apart... President McKay was only one of 15 who would need to reach consensus on the policy change. We know that there was significant opposition, within the 15, to such a change. So maybe it was prejudices within the quorum (not the Prophet) that couldn't be overcome. 1
bluebell Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 13 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don't think it falls apart... President McKay was only one of 15 who would need to reach consensus on the policy change. We know that there was significant opposition, within the 15, to such a change. So maybe it was prejudices within the quorum (not the Prophet) that couldn't be overcome. That could definitely be, but if God told Pres. McKay that it wasn't time (regardless of the reason) then it wasn't wrong for it to continue. It was God's will that it do so. 1
Storm Rider Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 37 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don't think it falls apart... President McKay was only one of 15 who would need to reach consensus on the policy change. We know that there was significant opposition, within the 15, to such a change. So maybe it was prejudices within the quorum (not the Prophet) that couldn't be overcome. Significant opposition? I thought Hugh B. Brown's biography by his son said there were at most two against the change. Do you have a reference that it was for more?
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: That could definitely be, but if God told Pres. McKay that it wasn't time (regardless of the reason) then it wasn't wrong for it to continue. It was God's will that it do so. Was it not the time because God wanted it to continue or because God didn't want a schism in the quorum? Edited June 7, 2016 by rockpond Fix punctuation 1
rockpond Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 40 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Significant opposition? I thought Hugh B. Brown's biography by his son said there were at most two against the change. Do you have a reference that it was for more? I don't know that we have an exact count. But we know that one of those opposed was a member of the FP and the senior member of the quorum (next in line to be the prophet).
bluebell Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 13 hours ago, rockpond said: Was it not the time because God wanted it to continue or because God didn't want a schism in the quorum? I don't think it really matters as far as the 'leading the church astray' argument goes. Either way the ban was acceptable to God and the prophet was doing what God wanted done by keeping it in place. The entire ban could have come about because God knew the weaknesses of His people in regards to racism. The reason doesn't really matter-all that matters is whether or not God condoned it. 1
stemelbow Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I don't think it really matters as far as the 'leading the church astray' argument goes. Either way the ban was acceptable to God and the prophet was doing what God wanted done by keeping it in place. The entire ban could have come about because God knew the weaknesses of His people in regards to racism. The reason doesn't really matter-all that matters is whether or not God condoned it. So are you of the opinion that God spoke the words to David O'McKay that it was not time, or that it was more about his impressions? I'm curious because my working hypothesis is God would not be so silly as to condone racism by the church because the members were racist. It is far more likely in my world to think God works with people and people often don't get Him, what He's wanting from them and He is trying to convey to them/us.
Daniel2 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 13 minutes ago, bluebell said: The entire ban could have come about because God knew the weaknesses of His people in regards to racism. The reason doesn't really matter-all that matters is whether or not God condoned it. This is the same line of reasoning I expect to eventually be applied to the revelation permitting same-sex relationships within Mormonism. 3
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 On 6/6/2016 at 11:18 AM, rockpond said: My answer: Agency. Even prophets have their agency and if they are overly influenced by prejudices, God might not be able to get through to them. That makes no sense. God is unable to get through to the men He called because of their prejudices? Either the God you believe in sounds pretty weak and/or the men He has called sound pretty mediocre. No, I flat out reject this. I believe that the men God has called to lead the Church are His humble servants. Not perfect, but if and when God wants something to change, he will communicate to them in a way that is clear, even if that means personal visitation. In Mormonism, God is at least complicit in every policy and action taken as He can prevent or undue any wrong teaching. Thus, even when things that are false have been taught and God allows/permits it, the Church is not being led astray.
Gray Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: That makes no sense. God is unable to get through to the men He called because of their prejudices? Either the God you believe in sounds pretty weak and/or the men He has called sound pretty mediocre. No, I flat out reject this. I believe that the men God has called to lead the Church are His humble servants. Not perfect, but if and when God wants something to change, he will communicate to them in a way that is clear, even if that means personal visitation. In Mormonism, God is at least complicit in every policy and action taken as He can prevent or undue any wrong teaching. Thus, even when things that are false have been taught and God allows/permits it, the Church is not being led astray. So do you think God will force people to understand correctly? What about their agency?
Mystery Meat Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: So do you think God will force people to understand correctly? What about their agency? I do not think that, but I don't think God calls people to be his Special Witness who are not humble and willing to learn and be taught by him. God could have taught Brigham Young that the ban was wrong. If Brigham would have rejected this counsel (he wouldn't have, had he received it), then God could have removed him as prophet or let the Church slide into apostasy.
Recommended Posts