Scrutinizing general conference

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

To repeat what I wrote above: I didn't say that the Proclamation was canonical. I said that its contents are.

The two things are not the same.

And speaking of failed prophecy, yours is going to fail. Get used to it.

 

Out of curiosity, where do I find this principle in our canon:

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

I know it has been taught before, I think originally by Talmage, but I don't know that it exists in our canon.  If so, I'd like to know where.

Edited October 13, 2017 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I didn't say that the Proclamation was canonical. I said that its contents are.

The two things are not the same.

When it came out in 1995, I read it carefully, and came away a little bit puzzled. I couldn't figure out why an official proclamation from the First Presidency and the Twelve was needed for what was essentially a summary of already-known doctrine. Was it, I wondered, merely a teaching tool? We have manuals for that. Was it for proselyting? Apart from a few scant references to pre-mortal existence and heavenly parents, there wasn't much there that most Christians could disagree with. I confidently expected that it would be forgotten before too long.

My face is red every time I remember that.

But the important point is that every bit of doctrine in the Proclamation - including those bits that are so infuriating to the "progressive" elements of society - was already well-known and accepted in the Church, to the point that it was all pretty much taken for granted at the time. That's why, to me and my contemporaries, it seemed like the product of a slow news day at Church HQ.

 

Here you have subtly identified why the proclamation is revelatory, just as Elder Oaks (and Sister Oscarson before him) said. In view of  how "the 'progressive' elements" seek to rationalize away longtime Church principles pertaining to the plan of salvation and traditional marriage, think what they would be doing had there been no proclamation issued in 1995 reaffirming and emphasizing these principles. The Lord revealed that there needed to be a document of this nature in place in view of the storms to come.

 

[JLHPROF]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Out of curiosity, where do I find this principle in our canon:

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

I know it has been taught before, I think originally by Talmage, but I don't know that it exists in our canon.  If so, I'd like to know where.

Genesis 1& D&C 20 shows that male and female genders are eternal.

The God's created mankind in their image, both male and female.

D&C 132 and Luke 20 indicate the continuation of male/female relationships into the next life.

D&C 76:24 indicates that there are both sons and daughters begotten by God of the earth's inhabitants.

D&C 138 includes a vision of Mother Eve and her faithful daughters in the next eternal life.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Genesis 1& D&C 20 shows that male and female genders are eternal.

The God's created mankind in their image, both male and female.

D&C 132 and Luke 20 indicate the continuation of male/female relationships into the next life.

D&C 76:24 indicates that there are both sons and daughters begotten by God of the earth's inhabitants.

D&C 138 includes a vision of Mother Eve and her faithful daughters in the next eternal life.

All those speak to the creation of males and females in the mortal sphere.  And they speak to the continuation of marital relationships which supports the idea that gender continues into the eternities as does Section 138.

It seems tougher to find something that supports the idea that gender was a part of our pre-mortal spirit identity.  Although, I have to say that gender being both a premortal and eternal characteristic is something that I just naturally believed long before 1995.  I don't think I could imagine anything else.  I just can't think of anywhere it's spelled out in the scriptures.  Maybe we just are meant to arrive at it logically.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Quote

For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

All those speak to the creation of males and females in the mortal sphere.  And they speak to the continuation of marital relationships which supports the idea that gender continues into the eternities as does Section 138.

It seems tougher to find something that supports the idea that gender was a part of our pre-mortal spirit identity.  Although, I have to say that gender being both a premortal and eternal characteristic is something that I just naturally believed long before 1995.  I don't think I could imagine anything else.  I just can't think of anywhere it's spelled out in the scriptures.  Maybe we just are meant to arrive at it logically.

Hamba beat me to it.  All things were created spiritually before on earth.  That would include male and female.

I would say the eternal nature and characteristics of gender are definitely scriptural.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

 

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Hamba beat me to it.  All things were created spiritually before on earth.  That would include male and female.

I would say the eternal nature and characteristics of gender are definitely scriptural.

I agree.  Thanks.

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

The question I was answering was about revelation being reversed.  If clinging to Brigham Young’s failed prophecy about when it would happen helps you justify it, that’s fine. 

It's not a matter of clinging to a supposed failed prophecy as to more properly understanding how things unfold.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's not a matter of clinging to a supposed failed prophecy as to more properly understanding how things unfold.

Well, the common defense of the race-based temple ban was that it had an expiration date.  Am I wrong?  That's how kiwi57 and many others before have justified the disavowal and change from previously received revelations.

Let's see how it unfolded:

1.  Brigham Young decided to deny priesthood ordination (and temple subsequent temple access) to Blacks.  The justification he provided was the "curse of Cain" and he taught that the ban would end when all the sons of Abel had received the priesthood.

2.  Subsequent leaders carried the ban forward and continued to find similar scripture-based justifications for the ban.  Carrying on Young's prophecy they often taught that it would end at some point.

3.  As late as 1969, the First Presidency declared that the ban preventing those of the African race from holding the priesthood and participating in temple ordinances was the revealed will of God.

4.  In 1978 a revelation is received that ended the ban decades, if not centuries before we can expect Young's prophecy to be fulfilled.

5.  Several years ago, in response to Professor Bott, we get the first public disavowal of what was previously taught as doctrine and claimed as the will of God.  Then, the gospel topic essay became the official disavowal in which the FP states that the ban was initiated by Young, cites the racist culture of the time, and states that none of the explanations are doctrinal.

So... no evidence that the ban came from God.  Current FP now states that it was announced by Young to the territorial legislature as a "policy" even though prophets, seers, and apostles taught that it was doctrine, the will of God, and revelation for over a century.  And all related teachings are disavowed.

Did I miss something in how it unfolded?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's not a matter of clinging to a supposed failed prophecy as to more properly understanding how things unfold.

Oh please.  If you so desperately believe in the revelation of Brigham Young that blacks can't hold the priesthood, how do you easily dismiss the second half of the prophesy that clearly states when the day will come that they will receive the priesthood.  

Hint'. After ALL the other sons of Adam.  How can you cling to the first part of the revelation yet cast aside so easily the second half of that revelation?

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh please.  If you so desperately believe in the revelation of Brigham Young that blacks can't hold the priesthood, how do you easily dismiss the second half of the prophesy that clearly states when the day will come that they will receive the priesthood.  

Hint'. After ALL the other sons of Adam.  How can you cling to the first part of the revelation yet cast aside so easily the second half of that revelation?

Oh please? That's a great conversation starter.

 

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Oh please? That's a great conversation starter.

 

Yeah and one you don't want to answer either.  Every since President Kimball announced the lifting of the ban, I have heard members like you proclaiming that it was a fulfillment of prophecy.  It was not.  It was a correction of a racist policy instituted by Brigham Young and perpetuated by the prophets that followed that couldn't wait to be corrected until "all the other sons of Adam received the priesthood."

Edited October 13, 2017 by california boy

[Meerkat]

 

L

On 10/11/2017 at 10:36 PM, Calm said:

That was probably the first thing I have ever heard Elder Eyring say that I had difficulty with.  He is probably the apostle I have connected the most with over the years.  I will be open and say it bothered me so much I had to stop listening to it, so now you have said there was further clarification, hopefully I will remember to watch it all the way through tomorrow.

It bothered me yesterday as I prepared for some auxiliary training.  I felt as if my faith had been weakened a bit by his remark.  But I needed the Lord's help for my preparation.  I prayed, and received the help I needed, as I usually do.  I mentioned my concern about the remark to my wife.  Listening to it, she said "It makes sense when taken in context of the question he was responding to.  The questioner was having difficulty making prayer more conversational."  Actually, my prayers are usually a one way conversation that is accompanied by feelings of approval, comfort, enlightenment, etc. especially when followed by scripture study or pondering conference talks, journals or other Church materials.  I don't recall ever having a conversation like I am having with you where there is give and take in sentences and paragraphs.  President Eyring' s response was accurate and edifying to me, when considered in that context.

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Well, the common defense of the race-based temple ban was that it had an expiration date.  Am I wrong?  That's how kiwi57 and many others before have justified the disavowal and change from previously received revelations.

Let's see how it unfolded:

1.  Brigham Young decided to deny priesthood ordination (and temple subsequent temple access) to Blacks.  The justification he provided was the "curse of Cain" and he taught that the ban would end when all the sons of Abel had received the priesthood.

2.  Subsequent leaders carried the ban forward and continued to find similar scripture-based justifications for the ban.  Carrying on Young's prophecy they often taught that it would end at some point.

3.  As late as 1969, the First Presidency declared that the ban preventing those of the African race from holding the priesthood and participating in temple ordinances was the revealed will of God.

4.  In 1978 a revelation is received that ended the ban decades, if not centuries before we can expect Young's prophecy to be fulfilled.

5.  Several years ago, in response to Professor Bott, we get the first public disavowal of what was previously taught as doctrine and claimed as the will of God.  Then, the gospel topic essay became the official disavowal in which the FP states that the ban was initiated by Young, cites the racist culture of the time, and states that none of the explanations are doctrinal.

So... no evidence that the ban came from God.  Current FP now states that it was announced by Young to the territorial legislature as a "policy" even though prophets, seers, and apostles taught that it was doctrine, the will of God, and revelation for over a century.  And all related teachings are disavowed.

Did I miss something in how it unfolded?

 I believe you have.

Whatever his motivations, or however incompletely he may have understood it, I believe there were legitimate reasons for Brigham Young to make the policy. We can't know what he thought because Brother Brigham is not here to explain or defend himself; however, I strongly believe he would approve of the lifting of the ban as it unfolded. I believe there was a purpose consistent with restrictions imposed by God in other areas and dispensations. It was inspired and correct for that time. I don't believe the Lord takes the handling of His Priesthood lightly. Were Brigham in serious error, I believe it would here been corrected sooner. So, yes, I believe the Lord inspired the ban as evidenced by His tacit approval and its eventual lifting by revelation from Him. If Brigham justified it with Cain, Ham, or Canaan, he will let us know why when we meet.

I agree with President Hinckley that "it was right, that the time had come....that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens." What time? The time predicted by Brigham, of course. The time the world as a whole was ready, when slavery was ended and strong movements were being made towards wequality and acceptance. When President McKay petitioned for it, the time had not come. Why not then nor when other Presidents sincerely appealed to the Lord? Brigham foretold a time and the Lord said to President Kimball "that time has come." That's good enough for me. No need to gain say those who were there. It was the right time and it happened in an orderly, peaceful, joyous manner. I don't believe that could have happened earlier.

In all the previous dispensations of the gospel the Priesthood and the temple ordinances were withheld from the world in general. There were always lineage requirements, restrictions, losses, and absences. These things came together in our Dispensation...the Priesthood and the temple filled the world for the first time in history....they really became accessible all the sons of Adam, if you will. In this sense, I believe Brigham's prophecy was correct. 

Now we're having this huge debate over the meaning of revelation when it comes to the Proclamation on the Family, but the there is no question that lifting of the ban as described by those present when it happened was revelation in the most fundamental sense. I do not believe we have a full understanding of this issue even now, but in the next world it will all be made clear. Never st any time, however, was there any question that salvation and exaltation would be available to all of God's children. It's a matter of timing and unfolding.

Quote

The question of extending the blessings of the priesthood to blacks had been on the minds of many of the Brethren over a period of years. It had repeatedly been brought up by Presidents of the Church. It had become a matter of particular concern to President Spencer W. Kimball.

Over a considerable period of time he had prayed concerning this serious and difficult question. He had spent many hours in that upper room in the temple by himself in prayer and meditation.

On this occasion he raised the question before his Brethren—his Counselors and the Apostles. Following this discussion we joined in prayer in the most sacred of circumstances. President Kimball himself was voice in that prayer. I do not recall the exact words that he spoke. But I do recall my own feelings and the nature of the expressions of my Brethren. There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. The Spirit of God was there. And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to that prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come, and that now the wondrous blessings of the priesthood should be extended to worthy men everywhere regardless of lineage.

Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing.

It was a quiet and sublime occasion.

There was not the sound “as of a rushing mighty wind,” there were not “cloven tongues like as of fire” (Acts 2:2–3) as there had been on the Day of Pentecost. But there was a Pentacostal spirit, for the Holy Ghost was there.

No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the Spirit whispered with certainty into our minds and our very souls.

It was for us, at least for me personally, as I imagine it was with Enos, who said concerning his remarkable experience, “And while I was thus struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind.” (Enos 1:10.)

So it was on that memorable June 1, 1978. We left that meeting subdued and reverent and joyful. Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.

All of us knew that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens. The answer was clear. There was perfect unity among us in our experience and in our understanding.

 

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Yeah and one you don't want to answer either.  Every since President Kimball announced the lifting of the ban, I have heard members like you proclaiming that it was a fulfillment of prophecy.  It was not.  It was a correction of a racist policy instituted by Brigham Young and perpetuated by the prophets that followed that couldn't wait to be corrected until "all the other sons of Adam received the priesthood."

"Members like you"? That's an even better conversation starter. Here's what other members "like me" have said.

Quote

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.” The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints.

And...from President Hinckley...

Quote

On this occasion he raised the question before his Brethren—his Counselors and the Apostles. Following this discussion we joined in prayer in the most sacred of circumstances. President Kimball himself was voice in that prayer. I do not recall the exact words that he spoke. But I do recall my own feelings and the nature of the expressions of my Brethren. There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. The Spirit of God was there. And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to that prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come, and that now the wondrous blessings of the priesthood should be extended to worthy men everywhere regardless of lineage.

Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing.

It was a quiet and sublime occasion.

There was not the sound “as of a rushing mighty wind,” there were not “cloven tongues like as of fire” (Acts 2:2–3) as there had been on the Day of Pentecost. But there was a Pentacostal spirit, for the Holy Ghost was there.

No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the Spirit whispered with certainty into our minds and our very souls.

Members like me? As you wish. 

Edited October 13, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Duplicate

Edited October 13, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Meerkat]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Yeah and one you don't want to answer either.  Every since President Kimball announced the lifting of the ban, I have heard members like you proclaiming that it was a fulfillment of prophecy.  It was not.  It was a correction of a racist policy instituted by Brigham Young and perpetuated by the prophets that followed that couldn't wait to be corrected until "all the other sons of Adam received the priesthood."

And in an earlier post, CB said:

"Those that don't see SSM fitting into the Gospel Plan do so because they don't want it to fit in."

My black friend who was baptized before the 1978 proclamation didn't believe the Church was racist.  He accepted he couldn't bear the Priesthood at that time.  He testified that he had been given the comfort and assurance he and his family would one day enjoy the blessings of the Temple, which they did about two years later.  I'm sure he's glad the timing was sooner rather than later for him.  He had a testimony that Jesus was the Savior, Joseph was a prophet (as were those anciently,) and the Book of Mormon was true.  But the Priesthood issue was not a deal breaker for him.  It is, after all, God's priesthood.  If it needed to be withheld for a time, the fact the Church was true was all that mattered to him.  Withholding it was a mistake was corrected by the 1978 revelation.  The sacred Temple ordinances are now available to all who lived faithfully through that unfortunate time. 

Gay marriage is different altogether.  One's race isn't a sin.  According to Romans 1:27 and Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, actual homosexual behavior is a sin.  It's not that some members of the Lord's Church don't want it to fit in, as you say.  Apparently Heavenly Father doesn't want it to fit in, according to the scriptures.  The scriptures and all the prophets are consistent on that.  Gay behavior thwarts God's plan of families and, if unrepented, may bar one from the Celestial Kingdom (if one believes the Gospel.)  

One's race has no such impact on the Plan of Salvation.  I can see it being a very difficult doctrine for some to accept.  But the scriptures are very clear and unambiguous on the subject of gay behavior or marriage. I don't see how one can wrest the scriptures and all the prophets on that subject.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Meerkat

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Oh please.  If you so desperately believe in the revelation of Brigham Young that blacks can't hold the priesthood, how do you easily dismiss the second half of the prophesy that clearly states when the day will come that they will receive the priesthood.  

Hint'. After ALL the other sons of Adam.  How can you cling to the first part of the revelation yet cast aside so easily the second half of that revelation?

It’s extreme cherry-picking:  sift through layers of false doctrine and offensive statements that have been disavowed by the current prophet, find a prophecy that has been proven false, and then declare “look, he said it would end”. 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Meerkat said:

My black friend who was baptized before the 1978 proclamation didn't believe the Church was racist.  He accepted he couldn't bear the Priesthood at that time.  He testified that he had been given the comfort and assurance he and his family would one day enjoy the blessings of the Temple, which they did about two years later.  I'm sure he's glad the timing was sooner rather than later for him.  He had a testimony that Jesus was the Savior, Joseph was a prophet (as were those anciently,) and the Book of Mormon was true.  But the Priesthood issue was not a deal breaker for him.  It is, after all, God's priesthood.  If it needed to be withheld for a time, the fact the Church was true was all that mattered to him.  Withholding it was a mistake was corrected by the 1978 revelation.  The sacred Temple ordinances are now available to all who lived faithfully through that unfortunate time. 

Gay marriage is different altogether.  One's race isn't a sin.  According to Romans 1:27 and Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, actual homosexual behavior is a sin.  It's not that some members of the Lord's Church don't want it to fit in, as you say.  Apparently Heavenly Father doesn't want it to fit in, according to the scriptures.  The scriptures and all the prophets are consistent on that.  Gay behavior thwarts God's plan of families and, if unrepented, may bar one from the Celestial Kingdom (if one believes the Gospel.)  

One's race has no such impact on the Plan of Salvation.  I can see it being a very difficult doctrine for some to accept.  But the scriptures are very clear and unambiguous on the subject of gay behavior or marriage. I don't see how one can wrest the scriptures and all the prophets on that subject.

The scriptures were also clear and unambiguous about dark skin being a curse.  We had numerous prophets teaching us that. 

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I believe you have.

Whatever his motivations, or however incompletely he may have understood it, I believe there were legitimate reasons for Brigham Young to make the policy. We can't know what he thought because Brother Brigham is not here to explain or defend himself; however, I strongly believe he would approve of the lifting of the ban as it unfolded. I believe there was a purpose consistent with restrictions imposed by God in other areas and dispensations. It was inspired and correct for that time. I don't believe the Lord takes the handling of His Priesthood lightly. Were Brigham in serious error, I believe it would here been corrected sooner. So, yes, I believe the Lord inspired the ban as evidenced by His tacit approval and its eventual lifting by revelation from Him. If Brigham justified it with Cain, Ham, or Canaan, he will let us know why when we meet.

I agree with President Hinckley that "it was right, that the time had come....that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens." What time? The time predicted by Brigham, of course. The time the world as a whole was ready, when slavery was ended and strong movements were being made towards wequality and acceptance. When President McKay petitioned for it, the time had not come. Why not then nor when previous Presidents appealed to the Lord? Brigham foretold a time and the Lord said to President Kimball "that time has come." That's good enough for me. No need to gain say those who were there. It was the right time and it happened in an orderly, peaceful, joyous manner. I don't believe that could have happened earlier.

In all the previous dispensations of the gospel the Priesthood and the temple ordinances were withheld from the world in general. There were always lineage requirements, restrictions, losses, and absences. These things came together in our Dispensation...the Priesthood and the temple filled the world for the first time in history....they really became accessible all the sons of Adam, if you will. In this sense, I believe Brigham's prophecy was correct. 

Now we're having this huge debate over the meaning of revelation when it comes to the Proclamation on the Family, but the there is no question that lifting of the ban as described by those present when it happened was revelation in the most fundamental sense. I do not believe we have a full understanding of this issue even now, but in the next world it will all be made clear. Never st any time, however, was there any question that salvation and exaltation would be available to all of God's children. It's a matter of timing and unfolding.

 

Had Young been alive in 1978 (post civil rights era) you are probably right that he likely would have supported lifting the ban.  But his teachings during his life don’t support such a move. 

Since our current prophet now disavows all that Young taught about the ban.  It’s tough for me to believe that it was inspired - I don’t know how to conclude that the ban was inspired while nearly everything ever taught about it was hideous false doctrine. 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Proclamation was never deemed revelation by the Prophet who holds the keys to declare revelation for the church. 

 

Other than an argument from silence, you have no way to substantiate this claim.

At the same time, we have the very recent affirmation from Elder Oaks, a participant in the writing and publishing of the proclamation, and a signatory to it, (and one of 15 men sustained as prophets, seers and revelators) that it was indeed revelatory.

Ergo: Affirmation by a participant and signatory nullifies supposition based on silence.

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I believe you have.

Whatever his motivations, or however incompletely he may have understood it, I believe there were legitimate reasons for Brigham Young to make the policy. We can't know what he thought because Brother Brigham is not here to explain or defend himself; however, I strongly believe he would approve of the lifting of the ban as it unfolded. I believe there was a purpose consistent with restrictions imposed by God in other areas and dispensations. It was inspired and correct for that time. I don't believe the Lord takes the handling of His Priesthood lightly. Were Brigham in serious error, I believe it would here been corrected sooner. So, yes, I believe the Lord inspired the ban as evidenced by His tacit approval and its eventual lifting by revelation from Him. If Brigham justified it with Cain, Ham, or Canaan, he will let us know why when we meet.

I agree with President Hinckley that "it was right, that the time had come....that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens." What time? The time predicted by Brigham, of course. The time the world as a whole was ready, when slavery was ended and strong movements were being made towards wequality and acceptance. When President McKay petitioned for it, the time had not come. Why not then nor when previous Presidents appealed to the Lord? Brigham foretold a time and the Lord said to President Kimball "that time has come." That's good enough for me. No need to gain say those who were there. It was the right time and it happened in an orderly, peaceful, joyous manner. I don't believe that could have happened earlier.

In all the previous dispensations of the gospel the Priesthood and the temple ordinances were withheld from the world in general. There were always lineage requirements, restrictions, losses, and absences. These things came together in our Dispensation...the Priesthood and the temple filled the world for the first time in history....they really became accessible all the sons of Adam, if you will. In this sense, I believe Brigham's prophecy was correct. 

Now we're having this huge debate over the meaning of revelation when it comes to the Proclamation on the Family, but the there is no question that lifting of the ban as described by those present when it happened was revelation in the most fundamental sense. I do not believe we have a full understanding of this issue even now, but in the next world it will all be made clear. Never st any time, however, was there any question that salvation and exaltation would be available to all of God's children. It's a matter of timing and unfolding.

 

You mean revelation? (bold mine)  Because as you well know it wasn't perceived as policy but that it came from the Lord/God. 

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You mean revelation? (bold mine)  Because as you well know it wasn't perceived as policy but that it came from the Lord/God. 

So if it's policy, that rules out it having come from the Lord, then?

Inexplicably, some seem to think a policy cannot be God-inspired or God-directed. That's not true. It can indeed be God-inspired/directed.

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Had Young been alive in 1978 (post civil rights era) you are probably right that he likely would have supported lifting the ban.  But his teachings during his life don’t support such a move. 

Since our current prophet now disavows all that Young taught about the ban.  It’s tough for me to believe that it was inspired - I don’t know how to conclude that the ban was inspired while nearly everything ever taught about it was hideous false doctrine. 

I have wondered whether William McCary's conduct at Winter Quarters played a part in the origins of the ban.  Several researchers have suggested as much.  On the other hand, Edward Kimball doesn't even mention him when discussing the origins of the ban, so there's that. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

Well, the common defense of the race-based temple ban was that it had an expiration date.  Am I wrong?  That's how kiwi57 and many others before have justified the disavowal and change from previously received revelations.

Let's see how it unfolded:

1.  Brigham Young decided to deny priesthood ordination (and temple subsequent temple access) to Blacks.  The justification he provided was the "curse of Cain" and he taught that the ban would end when all the sons of Abel had received the priesthood.

2.  Subsequent leaders carried the ban forward and continued to find similar scripture-based justifications for the ban.  Carrying on Young's prophecy they often taught that it would end at some point.

3.  As late as 1969, the First Presidency declared that the ban preventing those of the African race from holding the priesthood and participating in temple ordinances was the revealed will of God.

4.  In 1978 a revelation is received that ended the ban decades, if not centuries before we can expect Young's prophecy to be fulfilled.

5.  Several years ago, in response to Professor Bott, we get the first public disavowal of what was previously taught as doctrine and claimed as the will of God.  Then, the gospel topic essay became the official disavowal in which the FP states that the ban was initiated by Young, cites the racist culture of the time, and states that none of the explanations are doctrinal.

So... no evidence that the ban came from God.  Current FP now states that it was announced by Young to the territorial legislature as a "policy" even though prophets, seers, and apostles taught that it was doctrine, the will of God, and revelation for over a century.  And all related teachings are disavowed.

Did I miss something in how it unfolded?

 

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Oh please.  If you so desperately believe in the revelation of Brigham Young that blacks can't hold the priesthood, how do you easily dismiss the second half of the prophesy that clearly states when the day will come that they will receive the priesthood.  

Hint'. After ALL the other sons of Adam.  How can you cling to the first part of the revelation yet cast aside so easily the second half of that revelation?

Sons of Abel or sons of Adam?