"Priesthood Ban" in Gospel Doctrine - What Happens When a PhD Historian Teaches...

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think it is ok to exaggerate the past

No.  But that would generally seem to be an in-the-eye-of-the-beholder kind of thing.  A person bent on finding fault will always be able to pull out squishy accusations like "The LDS Church exaggerated when it . . ."

Quote

or leave out troubling aspects of leaders' lives

Undoubtedly yes.  We are the sum of our life's efforts.  The leaders of the Church are entitled to some measure of respect and decorum in terms of their private lives and their weaknesses.  

Quote

(like leaving out polygamy in the BY manual)

I don't think the omission of polygamy in the BY manual was because polygamy is "troubling."  That cat has been out of the bag since, what, 1852?

Rather, I think the omission had more to do with relevance.  We don't spend time dwelling on animal sacrifice in church manuals, either, even though that is a potentially "troubling" topic for a modern audience.  It's brought up in a limited sphere and for a limited purpose, but that's about it.  There's no need to get into the gory details.  Similarly, I don't think leering, lurid discussions about the sex lives of dead people is appropriate, either (which, to be frank, is where so many critics seem to want us to go).

Quote

in order to have a faith promoting lesson? 

The Church has limited time.  It presents the basics.  The fundamental tenets of the Restored Gospel should be front and center, particularly during the very limited time each week the Church has to provide the members with formal, systematic (though definitely incomplete) instruction.

The objectives of the three-hour block are to promote faith, yes.  And no, not at the expense of "truth" or any of that crap.  The Church, I think, fully understands that studying the history and doctrines and practices of the Church will mean that members can and will encounter controversies, difficulties, mistakes, and so on.  And yet the Church teaches us, consistently, to actively study the history and doctrines and practices of the Church.  

As Elder Ballard recently declared to CES employees:

Quote

As Church education moves forward in the 21st century, each of you needs to consider any changes you should make in the way you prepare to teach, how you teach, and what you teach if you are to build unwavering faith in the lives of our precious youth.

Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, “Don’t worry about it!” Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church. Fortunately, the Lord provided this timely and timeless counsel to you teachers: “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”

This is especially applicable today because not all of your students have the faith necessary to face the challenges ahead and because many of them are already exposed through the Internet to corrosive forces of an increasingly secular world that is hostile to faith, family, and gospel standards. The Internet is expanding its reach across the world into almost every home and into the very hands and minds of your students.

You can help students by teaching them what it means to combine study and faith as they learn. Teach them by modeling this skill and approach in class.

President Harold B. Lee observed:

“We would remind you that the acquiring of knowledge by faith is no easy road to learning. It demands strenuous effort and a continual striving by faith. …

“In short, learning by faith is no task for a lazy man {or woman}. Someone has said, in effect, that such a process requires the bending of the whole soul, the calling up of the depths of the human mind and linking it with God—the right connection must be formed. Then only comes ‘knowledge by faith.’”

Knowledge by faith will produce a pure testimony, and a pure testimony has the power to change lives...

Well said.

Quote

Isn't that promoting faith based on misleading facts? 

No.  The Church is, I think, presently doing a very good job of presenting lots of information to members.  That information, though, will necessarily be incomplete.  Necessarily.  So the individual members should be studying the Gospel on their own time and their own dime.

Quote

Is there a problem with this?

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 22, 2017 by smac97

[ksfisher]

40 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

It depends on the the class.  If it was an issue those in the class wanted to cover, then it was a successful lesson.  If not then it was not.  The priesthood ban was a practice or doctrine of the Church at one time.  It is not anymore but explaining the issue can increase faith by answering questions or concerns a member might have but rarely ever get answered but these issues are almost never discussed in any meeting.  How are members are supposed to teach the kids at home if if the kids have questions regarding issues they hear about?  One can't teach something they don't know and telling people "not to worry about it" rarely ever results in people not worrying about it.

What you've said is great is the purpose of the lesson was to learn about the priesthood ban.  However, it was not.  The purpose was "To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators." 

Edited November 22, 2017 by ksfisher

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What you've said is great is the purpose of the lesson was to learn about the priesthood bank.  However, it was not.  The purpose was "To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators." 

Which is why members concerns about the priesthood ban continue to exist.
And also why some members think this will allow for SSM or ordination of women in the near future.
Saying "we made a mistake but the Lord continues to give us revelation and correct our mistakes" may seem like a good message for the lesson, but if the origins aren't looked at the results will be misapplied.

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is why members concerns about the priesthood ban continue to exist.
And also why some members think this will allow for SSM or ordination of women in the near future.
Saying "we made a mistake but the Lord continues to give us revelation and correct our mistakes" may seem like a good message for the lesson, but if the origins aren't looked at the results will be misapplied.

I'm not saying that members don't have concerns.  I'm saying that if the teacher in that class made the priesthood ban the subject of the lesson then the purpose of the lesson was not fulfilled. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by ksfisher

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

What you've said is great is the purpose of the lesson was to learn about the priesthood bank.  However, it was not.  The purpose was "To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators." 

Which is why members concerns about the priesthood ban continue to exist.

To some extent.  Additionally, self-appointed critics and opponents of the Church are not about to stop weaponizing the Priesthood Ban.  It's far too convenient a brickbat to not use.

Quote

And also why some members think this will allow for SSM or ordination of women in the near future.

Yes, I have seen that.  I am theoretically open to those possibilities, but I think it's more of an exercise in wishful thinking for some than a practical expectation of the future course of the Church.  In any event, hoping for something to happen in the future does not absolve us of our obligations now (including sustaining the Brethren, not speaking evil of them, and so on).  "Some members" have a difficult time with that.

Even assuming the Brethren are collectively and categorically wrong (or, more charitably, "misguided") in their actions regarding these topics (SSM and ordination of women), as a general rule it is not within the province of the Latter-day Saints to publicly speak against them.  As to this point, let us consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (which I quote all the time, so I won't do it here).

As I write these things I can't help but think of Douglas Wallace.  Mr. Wallace was excommunicated in 1976 when he baptized a black man in a motel swimming pool, confirmed him a member of the Church, and ordained him to the priesthood, and did all of these things without authority (and, in the case of the last item, in contravention of the Church's priesthood ban, which was still in effect at the time).  He also tried to "confront" President Kimball during General Conference.  Let's assume that Mr. Wallace had the best of motives.  And let's assume that he viewed the priesthood ban as being non-revelatory in origin (or, more specifically, the unfounded conjecture proffered by some leaders and members of the Church to explain its origins, which conjecture has since been repudiated by the Church).  I think we should not publicly speculate about what Mr. Wallace will face at the Judgment Bar.  That is not within our province.  We should leave such things to God.  

However, what we can do is look at what his acts of rebellion against the Brethren and the Church - even acts in the service of what we recognize today as a good thing - have wrought in his life.  You would have thought that subsequent to the 1978 Official Declaration 2, which ended the priesthood ban, Mr. Wallace would have felt gratified that the issue he felt so passionate about in 1976 (the withholding of the priesthood from men of black African descent), and perhaps he would have sought to re-join the Church.  And perhaps you would also think that the Church's 2014 publication of the "Race and the Priesthood" essay would have left Mr. Wallace feeling vindicated, and perhaps he would have sought to re-join the Church.  Neither of these things happened.  Instead, Mr. Wallace has been a public (albeit apparently not very well known or particularly effective) opponent of the Church for decades.  

Mr. Wallace is approaching 90 years old, and by all appearances will probably pass on outside the fellowship of the Church, with much of his life having been spent working against the Church.  I sadly cannot think of a more clear-cut cautionary tale of going against the counsel outlined by Elder Oaks when he said: "The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault."

My sense is regardless of whether a person agrees or disagrees with the Brethren on the policy changes from November 2015, or with the Church's position on same-sex marriage, or with the Church's position on homosexual conduct, there is no set of circumstances here in which publicly accusing / criticizing / faultfinding the Brethren is an appropriate course of conduct for a member of the Church.  Instead, I think we should follow the counsel given by the Brethren, including as summarized and outlined by Elder Oaks.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 22, 2017 by smac97

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Elder McConkie further described the occasion:

It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord. (McConkie, "The New Revelation on Priesthood," p. 128)

 

Scott Woodward needs to put that McConkie quote out to pasture:

Quote

President Kimball desired that people not sensationalize the revelatory experience. "Some people would try to figure it out that I had a personal visitation from the Almighty as in the First Vision. I would not want to make the revelation different from what it was." Still, he had no doubts that he had received a revelation and that its source was divine. The strong, distinct, sacred impression he experienced banished for him the thought of questioning its source.

Speaking to seminary and institute teachers a few months after the revelation, Elder McConkie described the events in poetic language that some misunderstood. He said of the experience:

"From the midst of Eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet...And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord.

"President Kimball's prayer was answered and our prayers were answered. He heard the voice and we heard the same voice."

His ecstatic phrasing left some with the mistaken impression that the group had heard an audible voice speaking specific words. When President Kimball read the talk as published in 1981, he asked Elder McConkie to revise the statement to avoid possible misunderstanding.*

*Alexander B. Morrison equates Elder McConkie using the phrase "voice of the Lord" with Enos's experience, but Elder McConkie said he did not experience a "voice in the mind" as Enos did. The change President Kimball recommended was not made.

"Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball", Edward Kimball, p.234.

 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Again, you were a much better Mormon than I Jeanne! I never craved knowledge quite that much. I can't imagine the pain you had when you decided to leave Mormonism. 

I listened to part 1 of this podcast on Mormon Matters where they discuss a book called "Falling Upward", a spirituality for the two halves of life. It talks about learning as a child and learning as an adult. I might have to get the kindle version. And it talks about the burns in life help us grow and think. Here's the link if anyone is interested. http://www.mormonmatters.org/2017/11/07/424-426-celebrating-the-different-spiritualities-in-the-two-halves-of-life/

Thank you for this link...this is what I will check out tomorrow for Thanksgiving.  Thankful for you and all my friends here.

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

What you've said is great is the purpose of the lesson was to learn about the priesthood ban.  However, it was not.  The purpose was "To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators." 

Can't one do both?

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Can't one do both?

In one 40 minute class period? Hardly. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is why members concerns about the priesthood ban continue to exist.
And also why some members think this will allow for SSM or ordination of women in the near future.
Saying "we made a mistake but the Lord continues to give us revelation and correct our mistakes" may seem like a good message for the lesson, but if the origins aren't looked at the results will be misapplied.

Does the Church hold the position that the ban was a mistake? That’s news to me. 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In one 40 minute class period? Hardly. 

We are setting aside 6 Sundays to teach the Sabbath.  Why not start having multiple classes on other subjects as well?  There is a lot of redundancy over the year already when a core topic impacts multiple smaller topics.  Being more systematic about such could open enough extra days to add 6 Sundays over the year to important historical events so as to teach the greater context that narrative stories of our faith need to be most enriching and inspirational, imo.  It wouldn't need to be repeated every year even to cover new members, so one year could be devoted to teaching OT historical and cultural context on 4-6 Sundays, one year NT, one year BoM (both ancient and restoration translation events), one year D&C and any current events.

Seems like a workable idea to me, not pushing it, just saying it is not unrealistic.

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Scott Woodward needs to put that McConkie quote out to pasture:

 

When I first read Elder McConkies testimony of the revelation in the upper room of the temple, and each subsequent time I’ve re-read the same testimony, I never once thought he was saying he and the other General Authorities who were there heard an audible voice. I knew he was speaking of the “voice of the Spirit,” a form spiritual communication from God to man that is much more powerful and convincing and life-changing than a mere audible voice.

Am I to gather you think Elder McConkie’s testimony of the revelation in upper room of the Temple is worthless (after all, you say it should be ingnored) just because some spiritual ignoramuses might misunderstand (President Kimball’s word) him?

Should we put all the canonized verses of scripture that speak of the “voice of the Spirit” out to pasture as well because these same ignoramuses might think the verses are speaking of an audible voice?  

Do I take it that because President Kimball and the apostles in attendance that day didn’t hear the audible voice of God or witness God the Father and Christ deliver the revelation in the flesh that somehow the revelation is inauthentic and less credible? 

Here’s what Gordon B Hinkley had to say:

The Spirit of God was there.... Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing.... The voice of the Spirit whispered with a certainty into our minds and our very souls.... We left that meeting subdued reverent and joyful. Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that.
—Gordon B. Hinckley

Should we put President Hinckley’s testimony “out to pasture” as well?

 

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

When I first read Elder McConkies testimony of the revelation in the upper room of the temple, and each subsequent time I’ve re-read the same testimony, I never once thought he was saying he and the other General Authorities who were there heard an audible voice. I knew he was speaking of the “voice of the Spirit,” a form spiritual communication from God to man that is much more powerful and convincing and life-changing than a mere audible voice.

Am I to gather you think Elder McConkie’s testimony of the revelation in upper room of the Temple is worthless (after all, you say it should be ingnored) just because some spiritual ignoramuses might misunderstand (President Kimball’s word) him?

Should we put all the canonized verses of scripture that speak of the “voice of the Spirit” out to pasture as well because these same ignoramuses might think the verses are speaking of an audible voice?  

Do I take it that because President Kimball and the apostles in attendance that day didn’t hear the audible voice of God or witness God the Father and Christ deliver the revelation in the flesh that somehow the revelation is inauthentic and less credible? 

Here’s what Gordon B Hinkley had to say:

The Spirit of God was there.... Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing.... The voice of the Spirit whispered with a certainty into our minds and our very souls.... We left that meeting subdued reverent and joyful. Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that.
—Gordon B. Hinckley

Should we put President Hinckley’s testimony “out to pasture” as well?

 

First, Ed Kimball notes that "some" people understood McConkie's comment as referring to an audible voice, not "everyone."  That's great that you didn't.

 

Second, President Hinckley's quote is from 1988, so President Kimball never would have had a chance to express his thoughts about it as he did with McConkie's.

And third, President Hinckley's quote also includes this:

Quote

 

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.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/10/priesthood-restoration?lang=eng

 

So I'm pretty sure President Kimball would have been okay with it, although I would be more curious why the excerpt you quoted omits the "no voice audible to our physical ears" part.  That's a little suspicious...

Edited November 23, 2017 by cinepro

[sunstoned]

Thanks for showing the complete quotes on this Cinepro.  It does sound like President Kimball thought that BRM's "poetic language " was not an accurate description of the events.  It kind of makes you wonder if this was just a single occurrence or if BRM was prone to exaggeration. 

[strappinglad]

Gee, I guess I will have to look at the Psalms as mere exaggeration . Poesy and Prosody are two new words I learned reading RF Smith's essay  honoring Jack Welch. I am currently wading through all of the essays. Is it no longer allowed for an apostle to wax poetic when describing his spiritual experience? Some people will not be satisfied until there is authentic video and audio from the events in the Upper Room. And even then...

[kiwi57]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

First, Ed Kimball notes that "some" people understood McConkie's comment as referring to an audible voice, not "everyone."  That's great that you didn't.

 

Second, President Hinckley's quote is from 1988, so President Kimball never would have had a chance to express his thoughts about it as he did with McConkie's.

And third, President Hinckley's quote also includes this:

So I'm pretty sure President Kimball would have been okay with it, although I would be more curious why the excerpt you quoted omits the "no voice audible to our physical ears" part.  That's a little suspicious...

If you are inclined to be suspicious, I suppose you can be suspicious of anything.

I do not find that that omission materially affects the point Bobbieaware was making. Unwarranted suspicion brings to mind a Tolkien quote.

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Thanks for showing the complete quotes on this Cinepro.  It does sound like President Kimball thought that BRM's "poetic language " was not an accurate description of the events.  It kind of makes you wonder if this was just a single occurrence or if BRM was prone to exaggeration. 

"Exaggeration?" Wherein did he exaggerate?

Not being determined to find fault with him, I don't see the exaggeration you are so intent upon finding.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

If you are inclined to be suspicious, I suppose you can be suspicious of anything.

I do not find that that omission materially affects the point Bobbieaware was making. Unwarranted suspicion brings to mind a Tolkien quote.

I didn’t deliberately leave anything out. I simply found pertinent quotes and posted them.

I don't quite know where you’re going with this. Whether there was an audible voice or not is not the issue. The fact of the matter is that all of those who were present in the upper room of the temple that day attest to the fact that the simultaneous reception of the heavenly revelation to lift the ban was, up till then, the single most powerful spiritual experience of their lives, and that the mutually-received revelation was so powerful that there was absolutely no room for doubt that they had received a revelation from God and that the message of the revelation was the ban should be lifted.

Again, are you trying to find some way to cast doubt on the legitimacy and impact of the revelation on the individuals who were present so as to minimize the significance of revelation and the need for its receipt before the priesthood ban could be lifted?

Edited November 24, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

If you are inclined to be suspicious, I suppose you can be suspicious of anything.

I do not find that that omission materially affects the point Bobbieaware was making. Unwarranted suspicion brings to mind a Tolkien quote.

Help with the Tolkien quote please...normally I would get it, but very sleep deprived.  So now feeling indignant my mind won't naturally provide it.

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/23/2017 at 10:21 PM, strappinglad said:

Gee, I guess I will have to look at the Psalms as mere exaggeration . Poesy and Prosody are two new words I learned reading RF Smith's essay  honoring Jack Welch. I am currently wading through all of the essays. Is it no longer allowed for an apostle to wax poetic when describing his spiritual experience? Some people will not be satisfied until there is authentic video and audio from the events in the Upper Room. And even then...

As Hugh Nibley frequently pointed out, the problems always begin when a prophet says the fateful words, "I know." 

Quote

The true church must and will always have living prophets. But that is unwelcome news to the world. It has always been poison. It is the one teaching that has made the restored gospel unacceptable to the wisdom of men....woe to the living prophet! He shall be greeted with stones and catcalls even by pious people [added by BG...and unfortunately some members]....If Stephen had spent his life...denouncing the vices and follies of the age, he might have died peacefully in bed. But those fatal words, "I see," were his death warrant....Paul could have won his audience over by speaking as a scholar, but when he bore witness to what he had seen and heard, he was asking for trouble."  The World and the Prophets, pp.6-7,13.

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/22/2017 at 5:54 AM, Calm said:

"Wisdom comes from experience."

And for those members who were were black or close friends with black members and nonmembers before and during the aftermath of lifting the ban, I would be very interested in their experiences and insights.

For those members who had little direct interaction with blacks in or out of the Church during that time, I don't think just living through that era or even experiencing some of the blowback against the Church for its position automatically qualifies as experience that brings significant insight into the deeper impact of the Ban on those most affected by it.

We had very close friends, active members, who were directly impacted by the ban because the wife had black African ancestors. They put their hope and trust in the promise that the time would come, and when it came we all rejoiced together. I also served my mission in an area where this was a significant issue as we taught people the gospel. Shortly after the revelation was given that removed the ban, our stake president called a Black brother into the high council. He had been a strong member for many years through the ban and had always held to the belief that his time would come. It did, and we were all blessed because of it. I believe we all gained the greater wisdom of learning how to patiently wait for the Lord, to trust in the words of the prophets, and to hold to the rod even when it is uncomfortable and difficult to maintain the grip. 

Even without those personal experiences, I believe living through that tumultuous time and experiencing the blowback was instructive, and those who did so should be given some credit for weathering the storm. There are more difficult storms coming. As Brother Brigham put it,

Quote

You will find that there will be cats and kittens leaping out of the bag continually. "What can come next, I wonder!" I do not know; but this I know, the Lord Almighty will not suffer the Saints, neither the world, to slumber upon their oars. The time is past for them to fold their hands, and say, "Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands." This people will never see that day, for the Lord will keep them on the alert all the time; they will continually have something to contend with to keep them from dropping to sleep, and it is no matter to me as to what means He may use to do it.

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/22/2017 at 6:54 AM, Calm said:

"Wisdom comes from experience."

And for those members who were were black or close friends with black members and nonmembers before and during the aftermath of lifting the ban, I would be very interested in their experiences and insights.

For those members who had little direct interaction with blacks in or out of the Church during that time, I don't think just living through that era or even experiencing some of the blowback against the Church for its position automatically qualifies as experience that brings significant insight into the deeper impact of the Ban on those most affected by it.

I don’t know that anyone is claiming non-blacks have insight on the experience of “those most affected by it.”

On the other hand the lived experience of those who were in the mainstream of the Church back then — as I was — has bearing on the general attitude of mainstream members, whether they were apathetic or even favorable about the ban, or whether they wished for the day when God would decree the end of it — as I did — and rejoiced when the revelation of June 1978 was announced —as I did. 

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We had very close friends, active members, who were directly impacted by the ban because the wife had black African ancestors. They put their hope and trust in the promise that the time would come, and when it came we all rejoiced together. I also served my mission in an area where this was a significant issue as we taught people the gospel. Shortly after the ban, our stake president called a Black brother into the high council. He had been a strong member for many years through the ban and had always held to the belief that his time would come. It did, and we were all blessed because of it. I believe we all gained the greater wisdom of learning how to patiently wait for the Lord, to trust in the words of the prophets, and to hold to the rod even when it is uncomfortable and difficult to maintain the grip. 

Even without those personal experiences, I believe living through that tumultuous time and experiencing the blowback was instructive, and those who did so should be given some credit for weathering the storm.

Prominent black members of the Church who were members prior to 1978 — such as Ruffin Bridgeforth, Darius Gray and Joseph Freeman — have given well-publicized accounts of their experiences when the revelation was announced. 

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know that anyone is claiming non-blacks have insight on the experience of “those most affected by it.”

On the other hand the lived experience of those who were in the mainstream of the Church back then — as I was — has bearing on the general attitude of mainstream members, whether they were apathetic or even favorable about the ban, or whether they wished for the day when God would decree the end of it — as I did — and rejoiced when the revelation of June 1978 was announced —as I did. 

It was an interesting time.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[kiwi57]

On 11/25/2017 at 12:28 AM, Bobbieaware said:

I didn’t deliberately leave anything out. I simply found pertinent quotes and posted them.

I don't quite know where you’re going with this. Whether there was an audible voice or not is not the issue. The fact of the matter is that all of those who were present in the upper room of the temple that day attest to the fact that the simultaneous reception of the heavenly revelation to lift the ban was, up till then, the single most powerful spiritual experience of their lives, and that the mutually-received revelation was so powerful that there was absolutely no room for doubt that they had received a revelation from God and that the message of the revelation was the ban should be lifted.

Again, are you trying to find some way to cast doubt on the legitimacy and impact of the revelation on the individuals who were present so as to minimize the significance of revelation and the need for its receipt before the priesthood ban could be lifted?

Umm, Bobbie? I was agreeing with you. I think Cinepro supposes there was something nefarious in the omission, so I was challenging him about it.

I hope that clears things up.