The November policy change was reaffirmed as revelation in the Oct. Ensign

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Personally, I don't believe there was ever a ban from God.  Ever.

That's a position that is compatible with continued discipleship and fellowship in the LDS Church.  As far as I can see, the ban lacks scriptural/revelatory provenance (at least that we know of).  I think there are many faithful Latter-day Saints who have studied the matter and reached similar conclusions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

They were official teachings about why the priesthood was withheld, but I do not see that they were disavowed.  It was always understood that every worthy male would someday be eligible to receive the priesthood and that day has come.

You are correct that the ban was always presumed to be temporary.
But as for disavowals?

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

Official Teaching covered under this disavowal: The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality

Regardless of what we think about the ban and whether it came from God the fact is, theoretical doctrines for the ban were taught officially and now are disavowed.
Can't change history, only make sure we are viewing it honestly and without a bias.

[rongo]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Official Teaching covered under this disavowal: The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality

I wonder if those who don't believe the ban was in any way God's will believe that the pre-existence played no role at all in our placement, advantages, timing, foreordinations, etc. in mortality. In my view, one can disavow the past teachings of the Church all they want, but when that particular baby is thrown out with the bathwater, you are then left with no explanation for many of the "whys" of life. 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I wonder if those who don't believe the ban was in any way God's will believe that the pre-existence played no role at all in our placement, advantages, timing, foreordinations, etc. in mortality. In my view, one can disavow the past teachings of the Church all they want, but when that particular baby is thrown out with the bathwater, you are then left with no explanation for many of the "whys" of life.

Well ban aside, I still believe this teaching -  the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality.

It's scriptural, doctrinally correct, and makes sense.  The idea that our premortal lives had no impact on our lives here is foolish and naïve.
Does that mean it was responsible for the priesthood ban?  I doubt it.  But for many other things I have no doubt that premortality led to them.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

I wonder if those who don't believe the ban was in any way God's will believe that the pre-existence played no role at all in our placement, advantages, timing, foreordinations, etc. in mortality. In my view, one can disavow the past teachings of the Church all they want, but when that particular baby is thrown out with the bathwater, you are then left with no explanation for many of the "whys" of life. 

But you have no way to know what type of behaviour generally correlates to what save for a small set of leaders.  Strong faithful or whatever the equivalent then could be coorelated to being rewarded by an easier life having already proved oneself....though 'easy' is often a stumbling block, so not much of a reward...I never did get the pride cycle thing, why give prosperity as a blessing when God knows it will become a curse for the children at least, I would rather be blessed with hardship if it meant a greater chance for my kids to find and trust God early on and keep that trust...so maybe our loving Father knew the strongest would do best in what are much harder situations, so it is not the whites and/or rich that were the noble ones, but the poor and the oppressed minorities like the blacks.  Maybe whites were allowed the Priesthood because blacks didn't need it to be as righteous, etc, etc. Maybe those who are born into the Church are those unreasonable ones who would never have accepted another way even in the next life, while the vast majority are much more open in the long run to accepting the fact they were wrong and thus easily accepted correction when it became necessary.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

But you have no way to know what type of behaviour generally correlates to what save for a small set of leaders.

Curse that darned veil of forgetfulness.

Personally, I think that since God is eternal and his laws are eternal, that assuming some kind of similarity that premortal->mortal has with mortal->postmortal only makes sense.
We know that our sins and failure to follow God's laws here will have a huge impact on our situation in the next life.  While we don't know exactly how it worked it's only reasonable to figure that our actions in premortality would have a huge impact on our situation here.
I am reasonably certain that there were laws to follow, lessons to learn, and ordinances to receive in premortality.  And that our actions could certainly have determined the access to the gospel we receive in this life, the opportunities for progression, intelligence, callings etc.
Not talking Calvinism or Predestination here - but foreordination.  The idea that we are all created exactly equal doesn't fit with observation.

But maybe that's just me.

[cdowis]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well ban aside, I still believe this teaching -  the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality.

It's scriptural, doctrinally correct, and makes sense.  The idea that our premortal lives had no impact on our lives here is foolish and naïve.
Does that mean it was responsible for the priesthood ban?  I doubt it.  But for many other things I have no doubt that premortality led to them.

You might want to look at Alma chapter 13 on this subject.

[Jeanne]

If one of your children go astray...do you curse your child..give him less than his sister or brother?  Seriously..would God do this even in a pre-existing world?

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You might want to look at Alma chapter 13 on this subject.

Oh I have.
I assume you mean:

• "3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
  4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren."

 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

If one of your children go astray...do you curse your child..give him less than his sister or brother?  Seriously..would God do this even in a pre-existing world?

If your child breaks the law, do you not hold him accountable?
If your child murders, rapes, steals, etc do you not allow him to go to prison?  Do you expect him to continue to have the same freedoms and opportunities as his sibling?

The idea that this life is a fresh start, 0 sum from our premortal lives is not necessarily scriptural.  Any more than the next life will ignore anything we did here.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If your child breaks the law, do you not hold him accountable?
If your child murders, rapes, steals, etc do you not allow him to go to prison?  Do you expect him to continue to have the same freedoms and opportunities as his sibling?

The idea that this life is a fresh start, 0 sum from our premortal lives is not necessarily scriptural.  Any more than the next life will ignore anything we did here.

Of course not...but I don't condemn a child for a difference of opinion..or for not having one at all. 

[phaedrus ut]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Regardless of what we think about the ban and whether it came from God the fact is, theoretical doctrines for the ban were taught officially and now are disavowed.

There have been multiple official statements issued and signed by the First Presidency.  I have yet to see any official statement disavowing the ban only an anonymous essay in a gospel topics subsection.  Does an entry in a section of LDS.org override an official statement issued and signed by all members of the First Presidency? 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

There have been multiple official statements issued and signed by the First Presidency.  I have yet to see any official statement disavowing the ban only an anonymous essay in a gospel topics subsection.  Does an entry in a section of LDS.org override an official statement issued and signed by all members of the First Presidency? 

The  "Gospel Topics" essays were prepared under the direction and approval of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles:

Quote

Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.

The essay about the Priesthood Ban states as follows:

Quote

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24

...

24. Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Need for Greater Kindness,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2006, 58–61.

Here are some excerpts from Pres. Hinckley's talk hyperlinked above (emphases added):

Quote

I have wondered why there is so much hatred in the world. We are involved in terrible wars with lives lost and many crippling wounds. Coming closer to home, there is so much of jealousy, pride, arrogance, and carping criticism; fathers who rise in anger over small, inconsequential things and make wives weep and children fear.

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

There have been multiple official statements issued and signed by the First Presidency.  I have yet to see any official statement disavowing the ban only an anonymous essay in a gospel topics subsection.  Does an entry in a section of LDS.org override an official statement issued and signed by all members of the First Presidency? 

Of course.  Anonymous members of ad hoc councils always trump past prophets.  It'll always be so.  No need to have a living prophet officially state the objection.

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course.  Anonymous members of ad hoc councils always trump past prophets.  It'll always be so.  No need to have a living prophet officially state the objection.

Plausible deniability should anything change yet again?

Like Wilford Woodruff in OD1?

• One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge.
•  I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course.  Anonymous members of ad hoc councils always trump past prophets.  It'll always be so.  No need to have a living prophet officially state the objection.

From the introduction to the essays:

Quote

Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.

The essays are qualitatively and quantitatively different from essays or web content or other materials published privately by members of the Church (Jeff Lindsay, FAIR, Mormon Interpreter, etc.).  That is, the essays "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," and are also published by the LDS Church on its website.  These essays therefore officially and unquestionably represent the position of the Church, of the First Presidency, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

So I guess I don't understand your claim about the essays obviating the need "to have a living prophet."  Am I misunderstanding something?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 6, 2016 by smac97

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh I have.
I assume you mean:

• "3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
  4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren."

 

What is interesting about these verses is that they imply that you must have been fore ordained in the previous life in order to receive the priesthood in this life.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, cdowis said:

What is interesting about these verses is that they imply that you must have been fore ordained in the previous life in order to receive the priesthood in this life.

Yep.
"“Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was.   I suppose that I was ordained to this very office in that Grand Council.”
- Joseph Smith TPJS 365

"There are thousands of men upon the earth to-day, among the Saints of God, of whom it was decreed before they came that they should occupy the positions they have occupied and do occupy, and many of them have performed their part and gone home; others are left to still fulfill the duties and responsibilities devolving upon them.” - John Taylor JD 23:177

"In every dispensation the Lord has had those who were fore-ordained to do a certain work. We all dwelt in the presence of God before we came here, and such men as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the ancient Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles received their appointments before the world was made. They were ordained before the foundation of the world to come and tabernacle here in the flesh and to work for the cause of God, and this because of their faith and faithfulness.” - Wilford Woodruff JD 18:114

And of course Abraham 3.

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[rongo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From the introduction to the essays:

The essays are qualitatively and quantitatively different from essays or web content or other materials published privately by members of the Church (Jeff Lindsay, FAIR, Mormon Interpreter, etc.).  That is, the essays "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," and are also published by the LDS Church on its website.  These essays therefore officially and unquestionably represent the position of the Church, of the First Presidency, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

So I guess I don't understand your claim about the essays obviating the need "to have a living prophet."  Am I misunderstanding something?

So why not have the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles attach their names to them? They approved them administratively. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

So why not have the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles attach their names to them? They approved them administratively. 

They also haven't dated them.  Anonymous and undated essays are easier to revise.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

So why not have the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles attach their names to them? They approved them administratively. 

From the Church's website (emphasis added):

Quote

Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.

Is the underlined statement insufficient in your view?  

Thanks,

-smac

[rongo]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

From the Church's website (emphasis added):

Is the underlined statement insufficient in your view?  

Thanks,

-smac

Yes, it is.

I know (we all know) that it has been administratively approved, in that it is allowed to appear in the essays section of lds.org. No one disputes that. No one (including, I assume, yourself), believes that the Brethren wrote or gave input on the content. They outsourced it to historians and academics, and then approved the publication of it (without their names). 

So, why not attach their names to it? Why never talk about the issues in them? I would much prefer that a disavowal of what past presidents and apostles have taught come from current presidents and apostles directly. Actually, the anonymous essay does leave people room to disregard the disavowal, and I think that is one of the intended uses. It falls short of rising to, say, the level of the Proclamation on the Family by design ("We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles . . .").

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From the introduction to the essays:

The essays are qualitatively and quantitatively different from essays or web content or other materials published privately by members of the Church (Jeff Lindsay, FAIR, Mormon Interpreter, etc.).  That is, the essays "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," and are also published by the LDS Church on its website.  These essays therefore officially and unquestionably represent the position of the Church, of the First Presidency, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

So I guess I don't understand your claim about the essays obviating the need "to have a living prophet."  Am I misunderstanding something?

Thanks,

-Smac

my comment was made tongue in cheek.  It'd be odd for us to endorse anonymous essays as having greater authority than officially pronounced statements by our leaders, but that's what we do here. 

I agree that the essays were approved by the First Presidency.  But it remains an issue when many in the Church don't know about the essays, realizing the Church has official stances on some of this stuff, because the content of the essays did not come out of the leaders mouths. 

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They also haven't dated them.  Anonymous and undated essays are easier to revise.

I look forward to any revising that comes.  I'd imagine there are some things in the essays that could require revising. 

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

Actually, the anonymous essay does leave people room to disregard the disavowal, and I think that is one of the intended uses.

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting that the Brethren wanted to provide cover for members of the Church to retain racist views ("room to disregard the disavowal")?  If so, how do you square that with Pres. Hinckley's 2006 remarks quoted above?  We also have a September 2000 Ensign article, "'No More Strangers'" by Elder Morrison of the Seventy, with a subtitle "Racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil’s hands."  The entire article condemns racism in unequivocal terms.  And then there are condemnations of racism on the Church's website here (1995), here (2015), here (2016), here (2016) and here:

Thanks,

-Smac