Will the church ever abandon the belief that the Book of Abraham is historical scripture?

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But they are still not infallible.  So, the ban could have been a mistake.  Just as you told Jeanne above that she doesn't "know", that applies to each of us.

Asked and answered.

Fallible does not mean unreliable/untrustworthy.

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Asked and answered.

Fallible does not mean unreliable/untrustworthy.

Correct.  It means they are capable of making mistakes.  The exact word used to describe what the ban could have been.  It may have been one of the times a Prophet was fallible or made a mistake.

Edited January 26, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, he did tell them to preach the gospel to all the world. But, they didn't do it until the explicit revelation to Peter. 

 

The commandment had still been given. Which makes the two cases dissimilar, as there had been no specific revelation to lift the ban prior to June 1, 1978.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

 

 

"A man, he hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." --- Simon and Garfunkel

To others, Acts 10 demonstrated just how deep-seated the effects of Christ's command not to take the gospel to the Gentiles was. Only after a remarkable revelation to the head apostle and an angelic command to a Gentile sending him to Peter, was Peter comfortable deviating from what Jesus had commanded. 

It seems clear to me that the lesson of Acts 10 is a corollary to OD 2: in both cases, removing a ban required a direct revelation to the key holder. 

 

 

 

I would question whether Jesus really issued that command. He was from Galilee - which literally translates to "land of the gentiles".  In his sermons he speaks approvingly of unclean people like the Samaritans. The source (for him saying not to go to the gentiles) is pretty late (Matthew). It doesn't come from Mark, and I don't think it comes from Q either. That means we don't get this saying until 50 years after Jesus' death. Even if you disregard questions of historicity, Jesus himself "went to the gentiles" in other stories. 

Matthew was written by a Jewish writer, while Luke was written by a gentile convert. Jesus, as depicted in Luke, is much more pro-gentile than Matthew. Maybe that should tell us something about the biases of the authors.

In fact, Jesus dying on the cross made him unclean, in the same way the gentiles were unclean. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/26/2017 at 0:34 PM, JulieM said:

Correct.  It means they are capable of making mistakes.  The exact word used to describe what the ban could have been.  It may have been one of the times a Prophet was fallible or made a mistake.

Saying something is "possible" is not very impressive, as an infinite number of things, however unlikely they may be, are possible.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Saying something is "possible" is not very impressive, as an infinite number of things, however unlikely they may be, are possible.

Yes.  It's possible that the race-based priesthood/temple ban came from God.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Saying something is "possible" is not very impressive, as an infinite number of things, however unlikely they may be, are possible.

Correct. So you don't "know" anymore than Jeanne and your advice to her applies to both sides.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/25/2017 at 4:30 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

God's reasons for instituting the restriction and sustaining it for so long, even as prophets were petitioning Him for guidance pertaining to it, might have nothing to do with racism as you, with your limited, worldly capacity, understand the concept.

That's what is entailed in the concept of God's thoughts being higher than mortal thoughts.

I'm not certain that blaming God for our mistakes is a good idea:

Elder Russell Ballard, “God Is at the Helm,” Oct 2015 Conference, Ensign, Nov 2015, 

Quote

Too many people think Church leaders and members should be perfect or nearly perfect. They forget that the Lord’s grace is sufficient to accomplish His work through mortals. Our leaders have the best intentions, but sometimes we make mistakes.

---------------------------------------------------------   
Pres. Dieter Uchtdorf, October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

Quote

And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.

Despite tremendous efforts, Pres McKay was unable to find any justification whatever for the priesthood restrictions.  He wanted to appoint a mission president to Black Africa, but was advised by Pres Joseph Fielding Smith that he should seek a revelation on the matter.  That God waited until 1978 to reply to such requests tells us nothing about His intentions -- except that the Mormon people were not yet ready for additional light on the subject.  The same sort of changed attitude and official theology was a long time coming also for the Southern Baptist Convention (in 1995), and other such institutions.  Unlike them, however, the LDS Church already had a past history in which Black men were ordained and sent on missions, and in which Joseph Smith himself sought to do away with slavery.  That is the true legacy which we should treasure and uphold as God's will.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Correct. So you don't "know" anymore than Jeanne and your advice to her applies to both sides.

I have more to go on than just "it's possible." I have reasoned that it is highly unlikely that the prophets and apostles, accustomed and open as they are to seeking and receiving revelation (that is their divine role, after all) and then implementing it, would in this instance have sought revelation and then ignored it.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm not certain that blaming God for our mistakes is a good idea:

Elder Russell Ballard, “God Is at the Helm,” Oct 2015 Conference, Ensign, Nov 2015, 

---------------------------------------------------------   
Pres. Dieter Uchtdorf, October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

Despite tremendous efforts, Pres McKay was unable to find any justification whatever for the priesthood restrictions.  He wanted to appoint a mission president to Black Africa, but was advised by Pres Joseph Fielding Smith that he should seek a revelation on the matter.  That God waited until 1978 to reply to such requests tells us nothing about His intentions -- except that the Mormon people were not yet ready for additional light on the subject.  The same sort of changed attitude and official theology was a long time coming also for the Southern Baptist Convention (in 1995), and other such institutions.  Unlike them, however, the LDS Church already had a past history in which Black men were ordained and sent on missions, and in which Joseph Smith himself sought to do away with slavery.  That is the true legacy which we should treasure and uphold as God's will.

Your comment about "blaming God for our mistakes" amounts to begging the question in that it presupposes what has never been established, that being that instituting the priesthood restriction and leaving it in place for so long was a mistake. The Church had every opportunity to declare it a mistake in the "Gospel Topics" essay; that was not done. Disavowing all the erroneous attempts to explain it that were presented over the years, yet stopping short of disavowing the restriction itself, says a great deal.

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have more to go on than just "it's possible." I have reasoned that it is highly unlikely that the prophets and apostles, accustomed and open as they are to seeking and receiving revelation (that is their divine role, after all) and then implementing it, would in this instance have sought revelation and then ignored it.

I have reasoned that the prophet and apostles who signed off on the recent Gospel Topics Essay on this subject are correct when they assigned the origin of the race-based priesthood/temple ban to Brigham Young, rather than God.  Even though prophets and apostles have a divine role to receive revelation for the church, they are capable of making mistakes and we have records of such in our scripture.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Disavowing all the erroneous attempts to explain it that were presented over the years, yet stopping short of disavowing the restriction itself, says a great deal.

Cool... Scott and I find some common ground on this issue!

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have reasoned that the prophet and apostles who signed off on the recent Gospel Topics Essay on this subject are correct when they assigned the origin of the race-based priesthood/temple ban to Brigham Young, rather than God.  Even though prophets and apostles have a divine role to receive revelation for the church, they are capable of making mistakes and we have records of such in our scripture.

I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that all the answers are contained in the historical record or that they have ruled out God as the source of the ban.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Cool... Scott and I find some common ground on this issue!

I think you're purposely misinterpreting my meaning. When I say it says a great deal, I mean that they could easily have included the ban itself within their disavowal, but they chose not to do so, indicating to me that they didn't feel to do so.

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have more to go on than just "it's possible." I have reasoned that it is highly unlikely that the prophets and apostles, accustomed and open as they are to seeking and receiving revelation (that is their divine role, after all) and then implementing it, would in this instance have sought revelation and then ignored it.

But believing that Prophets are not infallible is believing they can make mistakes.  My point is you don't know that the ban wasn't one of those mistakes.  

But time to move on...I do think we actually agree here.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that all the answers are contained in the historical record or that they have ruled out God as the source of the ban.

I didn't state that "all the answers are contained in the historical record".  You might want to re-read my comment.

I don't know what they have or have not ruled out.  Neither do you.  But in the essay the only origin of the ban that they provide is Brigham Young.  Not God.  Not scripture.  Not revelation.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you're purposely misinterpreting my meaning. When I say it says a great deal, I mean that they could easily have included the ban itself within their disavowal, but they chose not to do so, indicating to me that they didn't feel to do so.

I didn't misinterpret your meaning.  I knew what you meant.  I think you know what I meant as well.

[Jeanne]

Just now, rockpond said:

I didn't state that "all the answers are contained in the historical record".  You might want to re-read my comment.

I don't know what they have or have not ruled out.  Neither do you.  But in the essay the only origin of the ban that they provide is Brigham Young.  Not God.  Not scripture.  Not revelation.

I believe that BY was a highly intelligent man...could plan a city..a business man and may have tried to be fair in a world and time that wasn't always fair...but.when the church wants to hand something off...they have no problem giving it to BY.  Of course I believe he was very racist in his ideas and points of doctrine.  That being said, He said these things came from God...!????

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

I believe that BY was a highly intelligent man...could plan a city..a business man and may have tried to be fair in a world and time that wasn't always fair...but.when the church wants to hand something off...they have no problem giving it to BY.  Of course I believe he was very racist in his ideas and points of doctrine.  That being said, He said these things came from God...!????

But BY's teachings on the subject have been disavowed by the current prophet.  And the essay hints at the racial prejudice of the time.

But I agree, he was a highly intelligent and charismatic man.  He did great work in leading the Saints at the time.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your comment about "blaming God for our mistakes" amounts to begging the question in that it presupposes what has never been established, that being that instituting the priesthood restriction and leaving it in place for so long was a mistake. The Church had every opportunity to declare it a mistake in the "Gospel Topics" essay; that was not done. Disavowing all the erroneous attempts to explain it that were presented over the years, yet stopping short of disavowing the restriction itself, says a great deal.

I just think it a cheap shot at God for our own mistakes.  Using the absence of evidence doesn't make the case that He approved of the priesthood restriction - no matter how long that lasted.  I agree with Orson Pratt that it was a mistake from day one, but I still love Brother Brigham -- and so does Orson.  Backhanded modes of approval are simply not justified.  It will be very interesting to discuss this with Joseph, Brigham, et al., once we get to the other side, and what a frabjous day that will be.  I may even have to eat some crow. 

[strappinglad]

There was a character in one of the TV series that I binge watched a couple of years ago that could see the future, or better said , an infinity of futures depending on choices made by individuals along the way. As I now walk in the tall weeds of speculation, perhaps that is how God works. He makes a commandment and people make choices and adjustments are made etc. Had Joseph become POTUS , would there have been a civil war? Had there been no civil war , how would the Church been different regarding blacks? We are told about the vision given when polygamy was ended, the vision of how, in essence, the Church would be destroyed had it continued with polygamy. Was it inevitable that Martin's wife would ' lose ' the manuscript? Would then the contingency plan put in place by Nephi been needed? Had the Saints been more saintly and the Missourians been more tolerant, would there have been a need to move West ?

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, JulieM said:

But believing that Prophets are not infallible is believing they can make mistakes.  My point is you don't know that the ban wasn't one of those mistakes.  

But time to move on...I do think we actually agree here.

I don't think we do agree. There is some presumptive negativity on your part that I don't share. 

But I will agree it is past time to move on. I'll make this my last word in this dialogue. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/27/2017 at 3:17 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I just think it a cheap shot at God for our own mistakes.  Using the absence of evidence doesn't make the case that He approved of the priesthood restriction - no matter how long that lasted.  I agree with Orson Pratt that it was a mistake from day one, but I still love Brother Brigham -- and so does Orson.  Backhanded modes of approval are simply not justified.  It will be very interesting to discuss this with Joseph, Brigham, et al., once we get to the other side, and what a frabjous day that will be.  I may even have to eat some crow. 

I continue to ask why, if God did not approve of the restriction, He did not say to inquiring prophets, and sooner than 1978.  I've yet to see a satisfactory response. 

Oh, I know some are quick to cast blame on Church leaders, raising issues of fallibility and what not. But that's a cheap shot in its own right, aimed at good and devout men who earnestly and unceasingly sought to ascertain the will of the Almighty. 

Edited January 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I continue to ask why, if God did not approve of the restriction, He did not say to inquiring prophets, and sooner than 1978.  I've yet to see a satisfactory response. 

Oh, I know some are quick to cast blame on Church leaders, raising issues of fallibility and what not. But that's a cheap shot in its own right, aimed at good and devout men who earnestly and unceasingly sought to ascertain the will of the Almighty. 

I think Robert gave his reasoning earlier.  I thought he mentioned that maybe the Saints weren't ready.  I would agree and I think that's a strong possibility. 

I think that it is a stretch to say that they were "earnestly and unceasingly" seeking the will of the Lord in regards to the ban.  Pres. McKay seemed to but also seemed to lack unity among the apostles.  Is there evidence that Presidents JFS and Lee ever inquired?  Or any prophet before McKay?

Note:  I am not questioning that they are good and devout men.  I don't think Robert was either. 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I continue to ask why, if God did not approve of the restriction, He did not say to inquiring prophets, and sooner than 1978.  I've yet to see a satisfactory response. 

I already stated it clearly above, Scott:  The Mormon people themselves were not yet ready to accept the word of the Lord on that subject.  I do not doubt the sincerity and purity of heart of President McKay.  Rather I vividly recall the racist folderol and phobias of many a good Mormon when I was young.  It appalled me then, and I was very happy to see it go by the boards when we were finally ready for it.

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, I know some are quick to cast blame on Church leaders, raising issues of fallibility and what not. But that's a cheap shot in its own right, aimed at good and devout men who earnestly and unceasingly sought to ascertain the will of the Almighty. 

If Elder Ballard and Pres Uchtdorf are willing to own up to the fact that LDS leaders are fallible, that's good enough for me.  Of course, Joseph Smith always said as much himself, and it is a major point of LDS doctrine.  I have always deeply appreciated this admonition from Brother Brigham:

Quote

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way” (Discourses of Brigham Young,135).  https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-student-study-guide/the-church-moves-west/the-legacy-of-president-brigham-young-a-latter-day-moses?lang=eng .