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

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I would say judging by the fact that many habitual critics of the Church leaders are now coming out into the open to declare themselves as being in opposition to the Lord's duly-authorized prophetic servants, the fruits of this policy are just as they should be. Or have you conveniently forgotten that since the dawn of man the prophets and their teachings have never been popular with those who love the fashion of this fallen world? In fact, the teachings of the Lord's prophets have been so consistently unpopular with the worldly-wise that the very unpopularity of those teachings is prima facie evidence that they are in harmony with the will of the Lord. And if you think the teachings of the Church are unpopular now, just wait till that prophesied day when division and the great falling away of the those who reject the Lord's prophets will come to pass? This time of the great falling away was testified to last weekend in General Conference. and there will be plenty to decry and gripe about when that day comes. 

See Rockpond.  It is all your fault that this policy is ripping families apart and people can't comprehend a church that claims to be the church of Christ forbids children from being baptized because of the sins of their parents.  In this church, we only baptize the children when the parents are without sin or are straight.  No children of gay parents allowed.  This is nothing.  Wait until you see what is coming next.  People are going to really get fed up with the church and leave.  It is all part of the plan.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

See Rockpond.  It is all your fault that this policy is ripping families apart and people can't comprehend a church that claims to be the church of Christ forbids children from being baptized because of the sins of their parents.  In this church, we only baptize the children when the parents are without sin or are straight.  No children of gay parents allowed.  This is nothing.  Wait until you see what is coming next.  People are going to really get fed up with the church and leave.  It is all part of the plan.

Yes, you gotta love the circular reasoning. 

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I would say judging by the fact that many habitual critics of the Church leaders are now coming out into the open to declare themselves as being in opposition to the Lord's duly-authorized prophetic servants, the fruits of this policy are just as they should be. Or have you conveniently forgotten that since the dawn of man the prophets and their teachings have never been popular with those who love the fashion of this fallen world? In fact, the teachings of the Lord's prophets have been so consistently unpopular with the worldly-wise that the very unpopularity of those teachings is prima facie evidence that they are in harmony with the will of the Lord. And if you think the teachings of the Church are unpopular now, just wait till that prophesied day when division and the great falling away of the those who reject the Lord's prophets will come to pass? This time of the great falling away was testified to last weekend in General Conference. and there will be plenty to decry and gripe about when that day comes. 

And what does it mean that faithful LDS who are not "habitual critics of the Church" are also opposed to this policy?

You have decided that anyone opposed to the policy is someone who "loves the fashion of this fallen world".  That's great because it allows your confirmation bias to support your conclusion about the policy.  But it is false. 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

And what does it mean that faithful LDS who are not "habitual critics of the Church" are also opposed to this policy?

You have decided that anyone opposed to the policy is someone who "loves the fashion of this fallen world".  That's great because it allows your confirmation bias to support your conclusion about the policy.  But it is false. 

Welcome to my world Rockpond.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I would say judging by the fact that many habitual critics of the Church leaders are now coming out into the open to declare themselves as being in opposition to the Lord's duly-authorized prophetic servants, the fruits of this policy are just as they should be. Or have you conveniently forgotten that since the dawn of man the prophets and their teachings have never been popular with those who love the fashion of this fallen world? In fact, the teachings of the Lord's prophets have been so consistently unpopular with the worldly-wise that the very unpopularity of those teachings is prima facie evidence that they are in harmony with the will of the Lord. And if you think the teachings of the Church are unpopular now, just wait till that prophesied day when division and the great falling away of the those who reject the Lord's prophets will come to pass? This time of the great falling away was testified to last weekend in General Conference. and there will be plenty to decry and gripe about when that day comes. 

They should announce a policy that people with red hair will be flogged. Imagine how unpopular it would be, and therefore inspired, right?

Edited October 5, 2016 by Gray

[cdowis]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

They should announce a policy that people with red hair will be flogged. Imagine how unpopular it would be, and therefore true, right?

Is that the best you can do?  Comments like this tell me that the church is true.

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Is that the best you can do?  Comments like this tell me that the church is true.

 

My point was that the unpopularity of a policy is not evidence that it was inspired. 

Edited October 5, 2016 by Gray

[cdowis]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

My point was that the unpopularity of a policy is not evidence that it was inspired. 

I know what you were saying.

Anyway, I apologize for my inappropriate comment.  I realize you didn't mean it as a negative, critical remark against the church.

Sorry.

Edited October 5, 2016 by cdowis

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I know what you were saying.

Anyway, I apologize for my inappropriate comment.  I realize you didn't mean it as a negative, critical remark against the church.

Sorry.

Thanks cdowis. I didn't take any offense, hopefully I haven't offended you 

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I would say judging by the fact that many habitual critics of the Church leaders are now coming out into the open to declare themselves as being in opposition to the Lord's duly-authorized prophetic servants, the fruits of this policy are just as they should be. Or have you conveniently forgotten that since the dawn of man the prophets and their teachings have never been popular with those who love the fashion of this fallen world? In fact, the teachings of the Lord's prophets have been so consistently unpopular with the worldly-wise that the very unpopularity of those teachings is prima facie evidence that they are in harmony with the will of the Lord. And if you think the teachings of the Church are unpopular now, just wait till that prophesied day when division and the great falling away of the those who reject the Lord's prophets will come to pass? This time of the great falling away was testified to last weekend in General Conference. and there will be plenty to decry and gripe about when that day comes. 

yeah yeah...the whole prophets are never wrong and it's proven because people reject their teachings.  What do we do when their teachings are popular in the world?  The priesthood ban was popular when it was instituted.  Not many, except black members, had a problem with it.  But then as it got more and more unpopular, as the Church dug in it's heels, the unpopular got so bad the Church had to change and teach that which was popular again.  Polygamy is different because it was never popular, but luckily for us the Church stopped practicing it to embrace the popular teaching of monogamy again.  Why does the Church and its leaders embrace so much that is popular? 

I thought you said the "the teachings of the Lord's prophets have been so consistently unpopular with the worldly-wise that the very unpopularity of those teachings is prima facie evidence that they are in harmony with the will of the Lord"?  How could it be possible that everything coming out of the Church is not decried as unpopular?  But yet, nearly everybody to a "T", believes we should embrace the notion of loving others (I know it's popular among Church leaders to suggest the notion of all we need is love is to be mocked in a pointing fingers from a large building type of way).  But we can rest assured in the Church because we are so unpopular...No need to worry.  All is well in zion. 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Gray said:

My point was that the unpopularity of a policy is not evidence that it was inspired. 

I agree with that.  That is why I said this: "In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and are themselves revelatory."

Assessing the policy vis-à-vis it being "unpopular" is, on its own, a faulty line of reasoning.  But assessing the policy vis-à-vis it being "unpopular" in the eyes of an increasingly fallen world, and also being in accordance with consistent counsel from both ancient and modern prophets and apostles . . . well, then that "unpopularity" may beging to mean something:

• "But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets..."  (2 Chron. 36:16)
• "{T}his is a rebellious people ... which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."  (Isaiah 30:9-10)
• "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.  Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."  (Matthew 5:11-12) (Luke 6:23 ; 3 Ne. 12:12)
• "And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house."  (Matthew 13:57) (Mark 6:4 ; Luke 4:24 ; John 4:44)
• "O, my beloved brethren, give ear to my words. Remember the greatness of the Holy One of Israel. Do not say that I have spoken hard things against you; for if ye do, ye will revile against the truth; for I have spoken the words of your Maker. I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken."  (2 Nephi 9:40)
• "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.  But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."  (2 Tim. 12-13)
• "So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure, which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer."  (2 Thess. 1:4-5)

There have been a few remarks in this thread from critics of the LDS Church who ridicule observant Latter-day Saints for supposedly having a "persecution complex."  Putting aside questions of tone and intent, the substance of these observations deserves some attention.  Simply put, we ain't seen nothin' yet.  All we are presently called upon to do is put up with, at its best, principled and reasoned disagreement and criticism and, at its worst, unkind online remarks from people hiding behind pseudonyms.  We are not being driven from our homes.  We have not been subjected to pogroms.  We are not being physically assaulted.  We are being asked to endure what in the end is some pretty mild stuff.

So yes, we should "rejoice" in being subjected to a bit of online snottiness, but not too much.  Let's keep moving forward.

I have also previously said this:

Quote

The prevailing winds of social change in 2016 are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage, so much so that those who oppose it on principled grounds are openly castigated as bigots and haters.  Such bullying tactics are, for me, strong evidence against the merits of the pro-SSM position, 'cuz bullies are essentially cowards who resort to bullying when they cannot resort to truth and reason and good will and persuasion.

The policy changes are, in my view, secondary and subordinate to the real issues at hand, namely: "Does engaging in same-sex behavior constitute a violation of the Law of Chastity?" and "Is same-sex marriage compatible with the laws and commandments and principles of the Restored Gospel as found in and taught by the LDS Church?"

If the answer to these questions is "no", then proceeding to criticize and complain about the policy change certainly makes sense.

However, if answer to these question is "yes", then the policy changes become considerably less controversial.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by smac97

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

yeah yeah...the whole prophets are never wrong and it's proven because people reject their teachings.  What do we do when their teachings are popular in the world?  The priesthood ban was popular when it was instituted.  Not many, except black members, had a problem with it.  But then as it got more and more unpopular, as the Church dug in it's heels, the unpopular got so bad the Church had to change and teach that which was popular again.  Polygamy is different because it was never popular, but luckily for us the Church stopped practicing it to embrace the popular teaching of monogamy again.  Why does the Church and its leaders embrace so much that is popular? 

I thought you said the "the teachings of the Lord's prophets have been so consistently unpopular with the worldly-wise that the very unpopularity of those teachings is prima facie evidence that they are in harmony with the will of the Lord"?  How could it be possible that everything coming out of the Church is not decried as unpopular?  But yet, nearly everybody to a "T", believes we should embrace the notion of loving others (I know it's popular among Church leaders to suggest the notion of all we need is love is to be mocked in a pointing fingers from a large building type of way).  But we can rest assured in the Church because we are so unpopular...No need to worry.  All is well in zion. 

In both ot the instances you cite, the practices ended by revelation from God. You may cynically believe the changes were made because the leaders caved in to pressure but I don't believe it. I believe the time had fully come to end the ban and the Lord revealed to his duly-authorized servants that it was so; and I believe the time to end plural marriage had also fully come and that the Lord revealed that fact to his servants as well. Just as Abraham was not required of the Lord to have to actually follow through in carrying out the sacrificial death of his son Issac, but that the commanded decree of sacrifice was arrested by God's divine intervention, I believe the Lord knew his latter-day leaders would also follow through if commanded to do so, but in his great wisdom and mercy the Lord himself brought an end to these unpopular Abrahamic tests of faith when they were no longer required nor needed.

You can continue to cynically believe the Church leaders lied when they most solemnly testified that they received revelation from God to bring an end to these two practices, but by personal revelation I am convinced otherwise. The critics who adhere to the sarcastic and cynical take on these things have every right to believe what they choose to believe, but in that great day when the Lord vindicates his servants, and reveals to a cynical and unbelieving world  that their take these things was tragically mistaken, these people will then have have only two choices: 1) lie to the Lord that they remained faithful to the Church leaders and hope he believes them; or 2) step up in all honesty of heart and humbly admit they were deceived. But I now see there is a third option: 3) admit they were deceived but that he should be merciful to them because without the benefit of personal revelation it was too easy to fall prey to what outwardly seemed to be so logical, obvious and easy to believe.

 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In both ot the instances you cite, the practices ended by revelation from God. You may cynically believe the changes were made because the leaders caved in to pressure but I don't believe it. I believe the time had fully come to end the ban and the Lord revealed to his duly-authorized servants that it was so; and I believe the time to end plural marriage had also fully come and that the Lord revealed that fact to his servants as well. Just as Abraham was not required of the Lord to have to actually follow through in carrying out the sacrificial death of his son Issac, but that the commanded decree of sacrifice was arrested by God's divine intervention, I believe the Lord knew his latter-day leaders would also follow through if commanded to do so, but in his great wisdom and mercy the Lord himself brought an end to these unpopular Abrahamic tests of faith when they were no longer required nor needed.

You can continue to cynically believe the Church leaders lied when they most solemnly testified that they received revelation from God to bring an end to these two practices, but by personal revelation I am convinced otherwise. The critics who adhere to the sarcastic and cynical take on these things have every right to believe what they choose to believe, but in that great day when the Lord vindicates his servants, and reveals to a cynical and unbelieving world  that their take these things was tragically mistaken, these people will then have have only two choices: 1) lie to the Lord that they remained faithful to the Church leaders and hope he believes them; or 2) step up in all honesty of heart and humbly admit they were deceived. But I now see there is a third option: 3) admit they were deceived but that he should be merciful to them because without the benefit of personal revelation it was too easy to fall prey to what outwardly seemed to be so logical, obvious and easy to believe.

 

I believe that the Brethren received revelation to end the temple/priesthood ban.  What caused them to seek that revelation is not really known but there is good evidence to suggest that it had to do with the temple being built in Brazil by a population that would not have access to it.  In the years leading up to that event, there was pressure from within the church leadership but consensus had not been achieved until 1978.

The revelation to end the practice of polygamy was more in question.  President Woodruff, under the pressure of the church losing everything that they had worked so hard to build, multiple husbands/fathers being imprisoned, and the tough situation of he and his predecessor having to live underground received what I believe was a revelation or vision of what would happen if the practice was not ended.  That revelation became the support for the manifesto.

History is also clear that not all of the apostles agreed/believed that President Woodruff had received a revelation as evidenced by how long it took for them to stop practicing polygamy.  Further, there were those who believed/followed President Taylor's 1886 revelation and disregarded the manifesto.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

yeah yeah...the whole prophets are never wrong

This seems like a vast oversimplication/distortion.

Quote

What do we do when their teachings are popular in the world?  The priesthood ban was popular when it was instituted. 

It was?  How do you know that?  CFR, if you please.

Quote

Not many, except black members, had a problem with it. 

The origins of the priesthood ban are unclear.  And there were hardly any people affected by it for the first several decades of its existence (which is not a measure of it being "right" or "wrong," but certainly a consideration in terms of whether it was "popular").  And during this period the Saints were trekking west, establishing towns and colonies, planting crops, and in pretty much every way just trying to eke out an existence.  They were focusing on survival.  An obscure policy which had very little practical application at the time was not on their minds, I think.  

In any event, not "{having} a problem with" the priesthood ban is not, I think, equivalent to the ban being "popular."

Quote

But then as it got more and more unpopular, as the Church dug in it's heels, the unpopular got so bad the Church had to change and teach that which was popular again. 

I don't think this really comports with either objective history (1978 was nowhere near the high watermark of public dislike of the priesthood ban), or the Church's teachings regarding the ending of the ban (which it attributes to revelation).

Quote

Polygamy is different because it was never popular, but luckily for us the Church stopped practicing it to embrace the popular teaching of monogamy again.

Again, I do not think this is an accurate statement of history.  The Church never stopped accepting monogamy.  Indeed, monogamy was the state of things for the significant majority of 19th-century Mormons.  Polygamy existed along side it.

Quote

Why does the Church and its leaders embrace so much that is popular? 

This seems like sophistry.  The Church has always "embraced" monogamy.  Always.  It was never forced to do so by popular opinion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In both ot the instances you cite, the practices ended by revelation from God. You may cynically believe the changes were made because the leaders caved in to pressure but I don't believe it. I believe the time had fully come to end the ban and the Lord revealed to his duly-authorized servants that it was so; and I believe the time to end plural marriage had also fully come and that the Lord revealed that fact to his servants as well. Just as Abraham was not required of the Lord to have to actually follow through in carrying out the sacrificial death of his son Issac, but that the commanded decree of sacrifice was arrested by God's divine intervention, I believe the Lord knew his latter-day leaders would also follow through if commanded to do so, but in his great wisdom and mercy the Lord himself brought an end to these unpopular Abrahamic tests of faith when they were no longer required nor needed.

You can continue to cynically believe the Church leaders lied when they most solemnly testified that they received revelation from God to bring an end to these two practices, but by personal revelation I am convinced otherwise. The critics who adhere to the sarcastic and cynical take on these things have every right to believe what they choose to believe, but in that great day when the Lord vindicates his servants, and reveals to a cynical and unbelieving world  that their take these things was tragically mistaken, these people will then have have only two choices: 1) lie to the Lord that they remained faithful to the Church leaders and hope he believes them; or 2) step up in all honesty of heart and humbly admit they were deceived. But I now see there is a third option: 3) admit they were deceived but that he should be merciful to them because without the benefit of personal revelation it was too easy to fall prey to what outwardly seemed to be so logical, obvious and easy to believe.

 

I believe the Lord wanted both to end and thus helped inspire their ends. I'm not sure what this speculation about how things will matter to God in the end means.  Are you saying that if a person thinks the Church was, in the past, wrong about something it taught or practiced and those teachings and practices changed, that the person should be held accountable for thinking the Church was wrong at some point?  Seems rather nit picky seeing as we're all just running around seeing through a glass darkly anywho.  I'm curious if the opposite would be true--if the Church was wrong and the people who don't think the Church was wrong back then have to answer to God for thinking the Church was not wrong.  Sounds like you'd be faced witht he same options. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This seems like a vast oversimplication/distortion.

That's what it was meant to be. 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It was?  How do you know that?  CFR, if you please.

I don't know how popular.  But since no one seemed to be outspoken about it, I'd imagine it means it was at least acceptable.  But, as was obvious particularly as the middle of the 20th century came around, the practice and it's subsequent teachings (which have been disavowed now) were more and more unpopular.  The Church at some point, of course embraced the popular notion of granting the priesthood to all equally, and allowed temple participation to all equally.  And then the Church took further action to disavow the previously held official teachings that explained why the ban.  Which no doubt, at least now, is far more in line with what is popular, than what is not. 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The origins of the priesthood ban are unclear.  And there were hardly any people affected by it for the first several decades of its existence (which is not a measure of it being "right" or "wrong," but certainly a consideration in terms of whether it was "popular").  And during this period the Saints were trekking west, establishing towns and colonies, planting crops, and in pretty much every way just trying to eke out an existence.  They were focusing on survival.  An obscure policy which had very little practical application at the time was not on their minds, I think.

Wow.  the way you put it really makes the question of the policy from last year more of a question to me--seeing as it has affected exactly zero people, at least in a direct sense.  I guess the ban affected plenty of people in comparison, because even a handful is more than 0, huh?  Anyway, I think you're right, in relative terms it didn't affect many.  Of course if the missionaries of the time treated black people with the same respect as they treated whites, it might be a different story.  It was too popular to treat people unequally--black people poorly. 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

In any event, not "{having} a problem with" the priesthood ban is not, I think, equivalent to the ban being "popular."

Well it certainly can't be said that it was an unpopular teaching.  if you think so then that would do away with the Church's official explanation of how it reasonably came about--it was started because of the popular teaching of the day. 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think this really comports with either objective history (1978 was nowhere near the high watermark of public dislike of the priesthood ban), or the Church's teachings regarding the ending of the ban (which it attributes to revelation).

That's fine.  I welcome you to think what you must.  But I'd say by 1978 it was far more popular to say black people should be given the same opportunities as everyone else and that's what the lifting of the ban did. 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I do not think this is an accurate statement of history.  The Church never stopped accepting monogamy.  Indeed, monogamy was the state of things for the significant majority of 19th-century Mormons.  Polygamy existed along side it.

That's fine.  I meant not mistake in the way I worded it.  But a mistake it was. 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This seems like sophistry.  The Church has always "embraced" monogamy.  Always.  It was never forced to do so by popular opinion.

Thanks,

-Smac

My question was posed in response to the notion that the unpopularity of a teaching has some bearing on whether it is true or not.  I'd suggest it does not. 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I  And then the Church took further action to disavow the previously held official teachings that explained why the ban. 

Please give us that reference to the "official teaching" for the ban.  Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine, some hidden document locked in the church vault that you have access to?  The church has admitted that there was no official teaching at all behind the ban.  Just the President of the Church exercising his keys of priesthood authority.

You just don't give up, do you.  Just keep blathering away with utter nonsense.

Edited October 5, 2016 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Please give us that reference to the "official teaching" for the ban.  Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine, some hidden document locked in the church vault that you have access to?  The church has admitted that there was no official teaching at all behind the ban.  Just the President of the Church exercising his keys of priesthood authority.

Are these not official teachings?

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God…. - First Presidency Statement December 15, 1969

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."
The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. - First Presidency Statement August 17, 1949
 

Yes, these have been disavowed.  But were they not official teachings in their day?
 

 

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Please give us that reference to the "official teaching" for the ban.  Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine, some hidden document locked in the church vault that you have access to?  The church has admitted that there was no official teaching at all behind the ban.  Just the President of the Church exercising his keys of priesthood authority.

You just don't give up, do you.  Just keep blathering away with utter nonsense.

The church did not admit that there were no official teachings behind the ban.

There were official teachings... when a man who is sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator for the church stands at the general conference pulpit or publishes in a church publication it is an official teaching.

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Please give us that reference to the "official teaching" for the ban.  Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine, some hidden document locked in the church vault that you have access to?  The church has admitted that there was no official teaching at all behind the ban.  Just the President of the Church exercising his keys of priesthood authority.

You just don't give up, do you.  Just keep blathering away with utter nonsense.

huh?  The 1949 first presidency Statement?  http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

Is it official?  I figured that which is published by the Church to be official?

[Jeanne]

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

[cdowis]

 

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, these have been disavowed.  But were they not official teachings in their day?
 

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.

[cdowis]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

huh?  The 1949 first presidency Statement?  http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

Is it official?  I figured that which is published by the Church to be official?

I was mistaken.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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

I agree.  But I think because it had been taught for so long, by so many prophets, that they felt a revelation was needed to end it.

That's why I think it will take a revelation to end the similar ban on gays.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  But I think because it had been taught for so long, by so many prophets, that they felt a revelation was needed to end it.

That's why I think it will take a revelation to end the similar ban on gays.

I agree with you there.  It seems some things that began earlier just seemed to carry over as time went by.  I do feel in my very heart and core that last November's policy had nothing to do with God.  Someday I hope they see this policy as unnecessary as it was to condemn others for the color of their skin.