The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[Gray]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Peter's revelation is often held up as an example similar to the 1978 revelation. The question is similar.  Prior to the revelations extending things to previously restricted groups, was there error in the restrictions and is there gospel evidence that shows it?

Peter being told to take the gospel to the gentiles doesn't show he was wrong limiting it to the Jews first.  And Spencer W. Kimball being told to extend priesthood to every race also doesn't show the Church was wrong for restricting it first. 

Africans are gentiles - Peter's revelation would have nullified any hypothetical priesthood ban (not that such a ban would make any sense historically - the priesthood was just for the Levites anyway)

Peter's revelation is really about the transformation of Christianity into a non-Jewish religion. Gentiles were always permitted to convert, long before Peter's vision. But the question was of them having to keep Jewish law before becoming Christians (Christians were just another Jewish sect initially)

Edited May 15, 2018 by Gray

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not trying to be difficult here.  But you did say "We (myself included) have no idea what factors factored into our mortal assignments. "  Now you seem to say you have plenty of ideas--that you don't just have an idea, but that your idea can't be denied.  

What I've consistently said can't be denied is that the pre-existence impacts mortality. What we can't say for sure is whether this impact was in a positive or negative way (and that can be in the eye of the beholder, and it can be a blessing in disguise, too). While I have ideas, they obviously aren't authoritative or binding. I think they're good, but everyone's mileage varies. 

I get that you are at where you are at --- that you are navigating your own faith journey, and where that puts you vis a vis Mormonism. And you are sincere in that. It wouldn't be an easy thing for me to be in your shoes, feeling what you feel, knowing what you know. 

What would interest me would be hearing from some of the more orthodox Mormons in this thread about whether they deny the pre-existence (choices, actions, etc.) impacting mortality in ways other than race. And whether they feel that our race on earth is 100% a random luck of the draw outcome of chance, as opposed to having divine purpose behind it. 

I'm pretty sure that you come down on the 100% accident of chance side, right?  

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

What I've consistently said can't be denied is that the pre-existence impacts mortality.

Again, not trying to be difficult.  But "We (myself included) have no idea what factors factored into our mortal assignments.".  I think we have different definitions of consistently.  

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

What we can't say for sure is whether this impact was in a positive or negative way (and that can be in the eye of the beholder, and it can be a blessing in disguise, too).

Are you sure?

"Not ailments, but we absolutely *do* teach that our choices and actions in the pre-existence blessed us with Israelite lineage, birth in Restoration countries in the dispensation of the fulness of times, etc."

Doesnt' saying "blessed us" suggest that we absolutely do know that it can impact us in a positive way?  if so, then also a negative?  

 

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

While I have ideas, they obviously aren't authoritative or binding. I think they're good, but everyone's mileage varies. 

I get that you are at where you are at --- that you are navigating your own faith journey, and where that puts you vis a vis Mormonism. And you are sincere in that. It wouldn't be an easy thing for me to be in your shoes, feeling what you feel, knowing what you know. 

What would interest me would be hearing from some of the more orthodox Mormons in this thread about whether they deny the pre-existence (choices, actions, etc.) impacting mortality in ways other than race. And whether they feel that our race on earth is 100% a random luck of the draw outcome of chance, as opposed to having divine purpose behind it. 

I'm pretty sure that you come down on the 100% accident of chance side, right?  

great.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Again, not trying to be difficult.  But "We (myself included) have no idea what factors factored into our mortal assignments.".  I think we have different definitions of consistently.  

Are you sure?

"Not ailments, but we absolutely *do* teach that our choices and actions in the pre-existence blessed us with Israelite lineage, birth in Restoration countries in the dispensation of the fulness of times, etc."

Doesnt' saying "blessed us" suggest that we absolutely do know that it can impact us in a positive way?  if so, then also a negative?  

Yes, blessed indicates that "it can impact us in a positive way." And the opposite is also true: it can impact us in a negative way as well. I think both are possible and also present, but we don't always know for sure which it is. 

What I'm saying is that we don't always know which is which, and we can be mistaken in our judgment. My family has always been quite poor in the eyes of the world (perceived by most as a negative), but we have been greatly blessed because of it (a perceived positive). Sometimes things that look "bad" to the world work out for the best for individual growth and progress. Especially in the eternal scheme of things (pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose).

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, blessed indicates that "it can impact us in a positive way." And the opposite is also true: it can impact us in a negative way as well. I think both are possible and also present, but we don't always know for sure which it is. 

What I'm saying is that we don't always know which is which, and we can be mistaken in our judgment. My family has always been quite poor in the eyes of the world (perceived by most as a negative), but we have been greatly blessed because of it (a perceived positive). Sometimes things that look "bad" to the world work out for the best for individual growth and progress. Especially in the eternal scheme of things (pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose).

I'm sure this is my last post for the day before they put a stop to me chiming in.  

Whatever you believe about all of this, doesnt' make sense to me.  Even if I put my Mormon believing hat on I can't tell where you stand.  I see a lot of jumping and hopping around.  In the end, I don't know that it matters how you see it, or whether you can express it clearly or whether I can understand whatever it is you are expressing, I suppose.  It seems to me there is no reason to accept a claim to revelation for the ban, nor the lifting of it.  That's my point.  I'll leave it be.  

"My family has always been quite poor in the eyes of the world"

That is the opposite of true.  I can say that with a straight face without any semblance of hesitancy.  Most of the world is so much poorer than your family, with far less temporal blessings it is ridiculous to even consider the comparison.  You have been misinformed.😁

Take care.  I'll see if they'll let me post again tomorrow or the next day, I guess.  Well come to think of it I might not be able to post either day considering my schedule...so until next time, have a good one.

 

[EdGoble]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

And I’m arguing that there are no scriptures that support that the exercise of premortal agency affects mortality in the way the priesthood ban said it does. 

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, but that’s what I was asking for scriptural evidence of. Not that choices in the pre-existence can have an impact on our opportunities here, but that they dictate our access to blessings regardless of the choices we make here. 

I think that there is kind of a logic problem with this, because I am of the mindset that the Lord's timing for people getting blessings has more to do with when family lines of the earth are destined to receive those blessings in that plan, and who is destined to serve them and when, and what talents and gifts are needed for certain work that has to be done at certain times.  This has nothing to do with premortal obedience or disobedience, but rather, simply when the Lord has decided people of a certain nationality or group or country are ready or prepared for the gospel, or when circumstances make it possible for them to receive it.  It has little to do with anyone's obedience or lack thereof.  The people of North Korea were not more or less obedient in pre-existence than the blacks, for example, but the time for the blacks was 1978, but the people of North Korea has not come yet.  There is no curse upon either group, nor was there ever.  There is simply timing, and this is not as a result of obedience or lack thereof, but rather, preparation and opportunity and circumstance.  There is no priesthood curse upon the North Koreans, but the blacks had their time before the North Koreans did.  This is not because of anything anybody did in premortality.

ALL children coming into the world are sinless, because anything that they did in premortality was wiped away by the atonement, because of repentance before they were born.

Some people are born into the world foreordained to be missionaries, and their time comes before others.  But not because they are more obedient than others.  But because they have a talent that the Lord intends to use in the service of others where it was necessary for some families to get the gospel before others so that the people in those family lines whose time came before are able to be ministers to others.  This is as a result of talents and spiritual gifts that these people have that enable them to minister to others.  These are natural gifts and talents many times, and do not always come as a result of some level of obedience over other people's obedience.  On the other hand, some people spent time developing talents in premortality that other people did not.  And again, it is the same.  If those talents are of use in the Lord's timing, then he has that person born at a certain time to minister to a certain group where that talent is needed.

So this is the model that I believe in, and it has nothing to do with people being denied access to certain blessings.  On the other hand, it only has to do with the timing that people are to receive the gospel as a result of many factors, but obedience or disobedience in premortality is not one of those factors.

Someone like Ronald Reagan was needed where he was needed during the time he was needed because of his talents and gifts, not because he was kept from and had no access to blessings of the gospel during mortality as a result of his actions in premortality.  It was because he was needed to be in a state where he was not a Mormon so he could be President of the United States at a very critical time, something where he had the talents and gifts to perform a certain work.  And the same goes for those that become ministers and missionaries in the gospel at certain times.  They have a work to perform, to serve a certain set of people at a certain point in time.

Therefore, the Lord's timing has to do with when someone's gifts and talents are of most use in the service of their fellows that dictates his timing for when a certain person should get the gospel.  Delay of reception of blessings is not an ultimate denial of blessings, but sometimes has an important purpose.

Many people are born into a state where they cannot have children or a spouse in mortality, but this is a delay of the blessings, not a denial of the blessings.  This is because there is some purpose in these things, not because they do not have ultimate access to those blessings in the grand scheme at some point in their existence.  My brother in law that passed away in an accident never could have children in mortality.  This is a delay of blessings, but he was needed in the spirit world where his gifts and talents are serving people that he needs to minister to.  He does not have access to his body right now, and cannot have children yet.  But this has a purpose, because of where he is needed.

The Holy Ghost has no access to a mortal body of his own, and the delay in that blessing is only because he cannot perform the work that he must do with a body.  When the time comes that he has fulfilled this work, he will get a body.

Edited May 15, 2018 by EdGoble

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

The reverse is also true, when you get down to it. And yet, we all agree that pre-mortal agency affects mortality in some ways (even important ways). It seems like some people just want to insist that it in no way does or can affect mortality with respect to race. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the reverse is also true" but I still don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

There are two things that we know about how pre-mortal agency affects mortality from scripture.  We know it affected whether or not someone got to experience mortality, and we know that some people would have the chance to be rulers  in God's kingdom because of their choices.  That is all we know about how pre-mortal agency has affected us.  

Those of us who want to insist that we don't know that pre-mortality agency shows up in our race or that it dictates our opportunity for blessings despite our choices in mortality, do so because there is zero scriptural evidence to support anything different.

Quote

Serious question: do you believe that race is 100% a random chance, that any one of us could 100% have randomly been born into other circumstances (race, time era, location, opportunities, etc.)? It's all completely random luck and chance? And our pre-existence plays 0% of a role in that?

I honestly have no idea.  I don't believe that it is chance, but neither do i believe that our race is a sign of God's favor or a sign of our pre-mortal righteousness/unrighteousness.  There are lots of reasons that God would have for having a hand in our race/where we are born that don't have to have anything to do with pre-mortal righteousness.

Quote

I think it's obvious that for the vast majority of human history only a very tiny minority have had access to gospel blessings ---- regardless of any of their choices made in mortality.

We ware talking about people knowing about the gospel of Jesus Christ, choosing to have faith in Him,  choosing to repent of their sins, choosing to be baptized, and choosing to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and being denied blessings despite those choices. 

That is what I mean when I say that believing that the priesthood ban was based on blacks being unrighteous in the pre-existence means that you espouse the idea that someone can be denied blessings despite the righteous use of their agency in mortality.  Where is that supported by scripture?

Quote

That's one of the exciting things for us today, who live in the dispensation of the fullness of times --- that there is unprecedented access and opportunity. How do we explain God's placement of almost all other people throughout history? Caprice? Random chance? Luck of the draw?

I'm not talking about access to the gospel.  I'm talking about access to blessings after choosing to accept the gospel.  Nothing in the above paragraph is relevant to what I'm talking about.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

What I've consistently said can't be denied is that the pre-existence impacts mortality. What we can't say for sure is whether this impact was in a positive or negative way (and that can be in the eye of the beholder, and it can be a blessing in disguise, too). While I have ideas, they obviously aren't authoritative or binding. I think they're good, but everyone's mileage varies. 

There was a great GA talk, which I lost in a basement flood but that I think was Elder Ashton. More or less it argued that we tend to invert what are blessings or curses. That is we assume the people in what we perceive to be hard situations are cursed and we're blessed. However those having it easy in the middle class west have a harder time being religious, are more inclined to various sins of omission and commission. I wish I could find the talk because it was incredible. Consider someone like Donald Trump. Was being put in those circumstances of extreme wealth where you could have anything a curse or a blessing?

Even when you look at the theology of the "Noble and Great Ones" usually it's prominent people who make big changes in society. Yet typically those people aren't Mormon and often barely Christian. But there's the other theology many hold to that assumes being born in the covenant is the blessing. There's an inherent contradiction there.

I don't think we've thought through the theology of how pre-mortal actions affect life here. My guess is that at minimum things are far more complicated than it appears at first glance. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There was a great GA talk, which I lost in a basement flood but that I think was Elder Ashton. More or less it argued that we tend to invert what are blessings or curses. That is we assume the people in what we perceive to be hard situations are cursed and we're blessed. However those having it easy in the middle class west have a harder time being religious, are more inclined to various sins of omission and commission. I wish I could find the talk because it was incredible. Consider someone like Donald Trump. Was being put in those circumstances of extreme wealth where you could have anything a curse or a blessing?

Even when you look at the theology of the "Noble and Great Ones" usually it's prominent people who make big changes in society. Yet typically those people aren't Mormon and often barely Christian. But there's the other theology many hold to that assumes being born in the covenant is the blessing. There's an inherent contradiction there.

I don't think we've thought through the theology of how pre-mortal actions affect life here. My guess is that at minimum things are far more complicated than it appears at first glance. 

Largely agree with this. I agree that we haven't thought through the theology of how pre-mortal actions affect life here, but I don't sense a desire to really think this through, either (not directing this at you, just making a general observation). While there are those like me and JHLPROF who don't think the Brethren were wrong (and who aren't afraid to discuss it), there seems to be a general feeling of "we have received enough, and don't need any more" with respect to this question. I think many don't want any additional knowledge, because then there would be implications and ramifications, so "we don't know" is all the answer that they want. 

That's why I'm disappointed that we aren't getting prophetic answers on this central question (how does the pre-existence affect mortality?). As I've said many times, to "disavow" past explanations without giving any authoritative ones is . . . not helpful. It's just a PR tactic to stall and move things along. In the spirit of AoF #9, I think there is a lot of room for "many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God" that aren't just policy changes. I'm not sure the questions are being asked, and I'm not sure that many people really want answers. 

[ttribe]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because it makes no sense doctrinally to believe God disapproved of the ban, yet never said so, never condemned it, never corrected it, and when God finally instructed his prophet stop it all indications are that the prophet was impressed that it was time the prophecies of the ban's end were fulfilled, not that it was a mistake.

In other words, what bothers me the most as my signature says is when men try to make God in their image, speaking as if our current social ideals are a match with God.  The whole "God wouldn't do that" thinking, the same one we arrogantly apply to many 19th century doctrines.  I don't think we have the right to make such statements and I said so repeatedly here.  God doesn't share our current 2018 moral compass just because we think he should.

I am not defending the ban.  I am refusing to define God based on what society today thinks he is.  God ended the ban by revelation. There is zero doctrinal evidence he had a problem with it before that. To say that the ban was against God is making God in our own image.  And that kind of thing has always bothered me. (I also hate the revisionist game of "blame Brigham").

I've noticed you positing an argument about the ban something along the lines of a "pulling on the thread"; that to deny the beginning revelation in this matter calls into doubt all manner of revelation. Do you think the ban holds that place uniquely, or could the same argument appy to many other revelations?

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Understood.

For me, I believe that the inception, duration, and ending of the ban were all God's will. I really do. That"s why it's so important to me. 

I think that the Church's "walking on eggshells" about the issue pleases nobody. I understand that taking one side or the other would alienate a significant block of people; hence the caution. But, isn't that what prophets and apostles are for?

Can you elaborate on why you feel this way?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

I've noticed you positing an argument about the ban something along the lines of a "pulling on the thread"; that to deny the beginning revelation in this matter calls into doubt all manner of revelation. Do you think the ban holds that place uniquely, or could the same argument apply to many other revelations?

Answering for myself (question directed at JHLPROF): Yes, I think the same argument applies to many other revelations. I think that the "because . . . fallibility" argument can become a runaway train that leads to the conclusion that we can't depend on prophets for anything, they are always speaking as a man (because people aren't willing to put it on the line and say, "This is revelation"), etc. I've referred to this as an "infinite regress of fallibility." I don't think the priesthood ban is unique in this; it's just one that the Church has tried to walk a tightrope with with the gospel topics essay.

Can you elaborate on why you feel this way (that the ban's inception, duration, and ending were all God's will)?

In a sense, it's just how I feel. In another sense, it comes from my reading of church histories, all 26 volumes of Journal of Discourses, etc. 

The ending is a little more complicated because I think it's clear that the pressure from the Sao Paulo temple was the major factor in the timing. But, I also strongly believe that God really did reveal to President Kimball that the time had come to lift it. Have you ever heard him describe with that voice of his his pleading with God, and telling him that he wanted to do his will, and was willing to continue it if that was what he wanted? Chills! Like Wilford Woodruff, he was prepared to defend it and uphold it if required, but we were painted in a corner with the temple in Brazil. An argument could be made that God was moving his chess pieces on the board with building that temple there, even before the pieces for ending the ban clicked into place. 

[EdGoble]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Largely agree with this. I agree that we haven't thought through the theology of how pre-mortal actions affect life here, but I don't sense a desire to really think this through, either (not directing this at you, just making a general observation). While there are those like me and JHLPROF who don't think the Brethren were wrong (and who aren't afraid to discuss it), there seems to be a general feeling of "we have received enough, and don't need any more" with respect to this question. I think many don't want any additional knowledge, because then there would be implications and ramifications, so "we don't know" is all the answer that they want. 

That's why I'm disappointed that we aren't getting prophetic answers on this central question (how does the pre-existence affect mortality?). As I've said many times, to "disavow" past explanations without giving any authoritative ones is . . . not helpful. It's just a PR tactic to stall and move things along. In the spirit of AoF #9, I think there is a lot of room for "many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God" that aren't just policy changes. I'm not sure the questions are being asked, and I'm not sure that many people really want answers. 

There is nothing wrong with disavowal of past explanations that are known to be false.  Just because we know something to be false doesn't guarantee that there is always further light and knowledge at the time to know what is absolutely true with confidence that ought to replace the thing that was false.  To know that something is false without knowing what is true for sure to replace that is still a type of partial revelation on a subject.  Sometimes the partial answer is "not that" instead of "this is it".

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

There is nothing wrong with disavowal of past explanations that are known to be false.  Just because we know something to be false doesn't guarantee that there is always further light and knowledge at the time to know what is absolutely true with confidence that ought to replace the thing that was false.  To know that something is false without knowing what is true for sure to replace that is still a type of partial revelation on a subject.  Sometimes the partial answer is "not that" instead of "this is it".

Sure, but this turns the tables on those who press "where is the revelation on this?"

Where, other than in Paul Reeve's essay, have any of the Brethren ever said that past explanations are known to be false? And if known to be false, why didn't the Brethren use the essay to say that (the essay "disavows" past explanations, but studiously does not declare them to be known to be false). And the only way we can know that they are false is if God declares it. Otherwise, we are trading opinions, views, and explanations (which the essay tacitly discourages by not offering "true" ones in place of the "false" ones).

That would be a big difference here, because that would be much stronger worded than a "disavowal." 

"To know that something is false without knowing what is true for sure to replace that is still a type of partial revelation on a subject."

Then why not declare it as a revelation on the subject? Why go the anonymous, outsourced essay route?

Edited May 15, 2018 by rongo

[blueglass]

On 5/13/2018 at 9:35 PM, clarkgoble said:

 Think of the Orson Pratt - Brigham Young disagreements. (Not on race issues but speaking more broadly) Brigham was an opinionated strong personality. He made a lot of big mistakes. However I'm not sure anyone less than Brigham could have done what he did. Which may explain why God didn't call a bunch of abolitionists. It was practical based upon what was needed for Mormon survival in the 19th century (in this view anyway).

Orson had huge disagreements with Brigham on race issues.  Look at the talk Orson Pratt gave in January before Young's famous 1852 talk.  At the time Pratt was pushing for blacks rights to vote, hold office, and against slavery.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Orson had huge disagreements with Brigham on race issues.  Look at the talk Orson Pratt gave in January before Young's famous 1852 talk.  At the time Pratt was pushing for blacks rights to vote, hold office, and against slavery.

It was an interesting relationship/dynamic. The talk right after the 1852 Adam-God talk is Orson Pratt, on assignment from Brigham Young, giving the official public polygamy rationale talk. In that talk, Orson gives a unique read on D&C 76:24 (spirits are begotten sons and daughters *unto* God, as opposed to *of* God. He places emphasis on the important differences between these two prepositions, and the implications this has for multiple spirit mothers).

Despite their battles and differences, Orson proved himself to be a loyal and good apostle and leader. And his talks and writings going into meticulous detail about things are a delight.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

I've noticed you positing an argument about the ban something along the lines of a "pulling on the thread"; that to deny the beginning revelation in this matter calls into doubt all manner of revelation. Do you think the ban holds that place uniquely, or could the same argument appy to many other revelations?

Sure.

If as some members would wish we were to decanonize D&C 132 as being a product of Joseph and not God, then there are a whole bunch of revelations and ordinances that would be called into doubt.

And there are plenty of foundational doctrines and revelations that if we were to remove would have very strong ripple effects.  (Some that will never be challenged and a few that might be).

[ttribe]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sure.

If as some members would wish we were to decanonize D&C 132 as being a product of Joseph and not God, then there are a whole bunch of revelations and ordinances that would be called into doubt.

And there are plenty of foundational doctrines and revelations that if we were to remove would have very strong ripple effects.  (Some that will never be challenged and a few that might be).

Why would you consider the Priesthood ban to be foundational?

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Why would you consider the Priesthood ban to be foundational?

No.  But believing it to be entirely  man made has repercussions that cannot and should not be ignored in our understanding of it.

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No.  But believing it to be entirely  man made has repercussions that cannot and should not be ignored in our understanding of it.

And, if all the prophets can be so wrong about something like that for so long (without God intervening somehow), then we can't be sure of anything. That's the ripple effect you're talking about. 

I'd like to hear from those who think it was completely of man and not of God explain a) if this constitutes prophets leading astray, and b) if not, why this issue isn't an example of prophets being allowed to lead astray.

[blueglass]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No.  But believing it to be entirely  man made has repercussions that cannot and should not be ignored in our understanding of it.

From my perspective the origins of banning blacks from receiving ordinances of exaltation; endowment, eternal marriage, second anointing are a little different.  I believe the ban was inspired by lucifer himself and was entirely made from darkness, racial bias, social weaknesses.  It was a tentacle of the apostasy which became cancerous, malignant, and it has badly damaged the church.  

[rongo]

1 minute ago, blueglass said:

From my perspective the origins of banning blacks from receiving ordinances of exaltation; endowment, eternal marriage, second anointing are a little different.  I believe the ban was inspired by lucifer himself and was entirely made from darkness, racial bias, social weaknesses.  It was a tentacle of the apostasy which became cancerous, malignant, and it has badly damaged the church.  

That is certainly one way to look at it, and it doesn't tiptoe around with the implications and just chalk it up to "because . . . fallibility." 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Sure.

If as some members would wish we were to decanonize D&C 132 as being a product of Joseph and not God, then there are a whole bunch of revelations and ordinances that would be called into doubt.

And there are plenty of foundational doctrines and revelations that if we were to remove would have very strong ripple effects.  (Some that will never be challenged and a few that might be).

Can you imagine the impact if, as some members would like, the Church removed whole passages from the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price? It would strongly devalue scriptures in general and Joseph Smith in particular. That's an extreme position that I don't think many active members are advocating, but some of them are. 

[EdGoble]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

 Sure, but this turns the tables on those who press "where is the revelation on this?"

Where, other than in Paul Reeve's essay, have any of the Brethren ever said that past explanations are known to be false? And if known to be false, why didn't the Brethren use the essay to say that (the essay "disavows" past explanations, but studiously does not declare them to be known to be false). And the only way we can know that they are false is if God declares it. Otherwise, we are trading opinions, views, and explanations (which the essay tacitly discourages by not offering "true" ones in place of the "false" ones).

That would be a big difference here, because that would be much stronger worded than a "disavowal." 

"To know that something is false without knowing what is true for sure to replace that is still a type of partial revelation on a subject."

Then why not declare it as a revelation on the subject? Why go the anonymous, outsourced essay route?

Well, then if someone is worried about something being done officially in all cases, perhaps they are relying too much on the arm of flesh anyway.  It seems kind of like relying on the prophet for all light and knowledge is sort of a "lesser-law" type of mindset anyway.   I know that people want the Brethren to tell them what is what, and they put a lot of stock in what is official, but I for one do not wait for something to be official.

Why worry about what the Brethren do in the first place, and get one's own independent light and knowledge?  I am not implying that one ought to preach one's own theories or hypotheses or revelations in Church.  But still one can know for one's self.

Why are individuals waiting to be told about what is official to know what is true?  Just because it is official doesn't make it true in the most absolute sense anyway, because things are always overturned, maybe if not entirely, then in details of things, which is why I put some emphasis on the notion of partial revelation.

I don't concern myself much with what the Brethren do or do not do, or say or do not say on this that or the other subject.  But I do know in many cases when the brethren speak, the power of the Holy Ghost is behind it, even in partial revelations, and even in disavowals, regardless of how they come.

In other words, I can sympathize with your sentiment in the sense that it would be nice for everyone that puts a lot of stock in what comes from the Brethren.  But for myself, I don't really need something to be uber official and declared uber-plainly to know if it is true, because I don't personally rely on them that much in things that are particularly controversial to come to my own best understanding of what I think the truth is.

Besides, with disavowals and being left with nothing to replace something with, puts the burden of revelation on the member instead of the Brethren, to use their own best light.  Perhaps a minimalist Mormonism, or Mormon minimalism, or Mormon reductionist position, whatever the best term is, is the best recipe for the modern age, so that people can use their own faculties to come to a knowledge of the truth, and flex their own mental and spiritual muscles.

Edited May 15, 2018 by EdGoble

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

And, if all the prophets can be so wrong about something like that for so long (without God intervening somehow), then we can't be sure of anything. That's the ripple effect you're talking about. 

It's certainly one of the big ones.  Another as I've already stated is it calls into question the validity or interpretation of the 1978 revelation.  Another are numerous scriptural references to God selecting one genealogy as preferred.  Heck, people still debate what Christ meant by his statement to the woman of Samaria (I think that's where she was from).

Where do we stop pulling at threads before our disbelief unravels everything?

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's certainly one of the big ones.  Another as I've already stated is it calls into question the validity or interpretation of the 1978 revelation.  

Part of that infinite regress is that the Paul Reeve essay can also be "disavowed" at a later time, as needed. There is literally nothing where the hands cannot simply be washed of a matter, just like that, once you go down the disavowal/repudiation/condemnation road.