The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In what way?  Or did you misspeak yourself here?  Or am I too ignorant to understand what is being asserted?

If the ban was man made then the 1978 revelation was misunderstood by those who received it when they wrote:

"Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood"

 

The revelation was not considered a correction, but the fulfillment of prophecies, prophecies given by God to his prophets.  

It seems somewhat illogical that God would inspire his approved early prophets to predict the end of the ban and provide his current  prophet a revelation confirming the time to fulfill those prophecies had arrived if it were an error from the start.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If the ban was man made then the 1978 revelation was misunderstood by those who received it when they wrote:

"Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood"

 

The revelation was not considered a correction, but the fulfillment of prophecies, prophecies given by God to his prophets.  

It seems somewhat illogical that God would inspire his approved early prophets to predict the end of the ban and provide his current  prophet a revelation confirming the time to fulfill those prophecies had arrived if it were an error from the start.

I assume we're talking about Brigham's prophecy of after all the others receive the blessings of the priesthood stuff.  If so, then to consider this a fulfillment of that prophecy has to be a joke, right?   But you raise an interesting point, either Brigham and all those who were with him, considered him a prophet and thus offered similar confirming messages were speaking out of their caboose, or the leaders who penned the announcement in '78 were speaking out fo their caboose, or all of them were together speaking out of their cabooses.  The last idea seems most likely, since up until June '78 they were as with Brigham and company as anyone else.  And if so, then the announcement in '78 was less about announcing a prophecy and more about covering their cabooses, which they for some reason felt the need to speak out of.  

It seems most logical to conclude the whole episode represents:

Men presuming to speak authoritatively on topics they know nothing about, and passing it off as coming from God.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems most logical to conclude the whole episode represents:

Men presuming to speak authoritatively on topics they know nothing about, and passing it off as coming from God.

It's a tapestry issue.  Start pulling on one thread (remove any involvement of God in the ban) and it inevitably cause other elements to unravel  (prophecy, 1978 revelation, other scriptures).

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's a tapestry issue.  Start pulling on one thread (remove any involvement of God in the ban) and it inevitably cause other elements to unravel  (prophecy, 1978 revelation, other scriptures).

My question on the last page had more to do with the ban’s tenure than its origination. As far as dealing with the thread of the ban's origin, I think I have a similar example from my life. When I received a witness that I should join the LDS Church, I had little if any understanding of her origins and even some of the essential details,  and it took years to develop even a cursory understanding. Yet God answered my prayer from where I stood and with the assumptions and understanding I possessed. I think the same is valid for the prophets and apostles in 1978: whatever they understood to be the origin of the ban, God answered and settled the question for moving forward.

Edited May 14, 2018 by CV75

[rongo]

On 5/13/2018 at 7:23 AM, Glenn101 said:

Another is the cognitive dissonance I have with God allowing such an supposedly egregiously wrong policy to be perpetuated for the majority of the temporal existence of the Restoration . . . 

If the ban were a mistake of cosmic proportions as has been alleged as some, there are some serious implications for the church and or God. Taking the course that the Church is true but the ban was wrong and entirely man made, we have a problem that either God told Brigham that the ban was wrong and Brigham had the temerity to ignore God's instructions but God did nothing to correct Brigham in this. Or God knew that it was wrong but did nothing to correct Brigham and allowed a gross injustice to to be perpetuated for generations without God, through revelation, going on record to advise us that the policy was not from Him.

The same principle applies to polygamy also.

Glenn

I fully agree, Glen.

As cinepro has pointed out several times, Mormons profess belief in fallibility, but are never able to give  contemporary examples --- only ones that are safely in the past. Which makes their smugly stated, “mature” belief in fallibility not useful or practical in the present.

Slavish insistence on fallibility leads to an “infinite regress” of fallibility --- where literally and conceivably anything can be disallowed or waved away . . . because, fallibility. And fallibility apologists follow this infinite regress with a vengeance.

There have to be some things that are off the table for this, though, or we can’t be certain of anything at all. Current declared revelation will always have an asterisk next to it, and be provisional. For me (and many others), the priesthood ban not being of divine origin is in this category. This is what juliann lamented as the Brethren being afraid to “do the right thing,” causing them to “walk on eggshells.” And it’s true --- if they were to declare that the whole thing was a mistake, not of God, and allowed to persist uncorrected for over a hundred years, it would have a devastating effect on the Church. Not in terms of mass resignations (I don’t believe this would happen), but a massive decline in commitment, morale, and intensity of conviction. They know that, and that’s why I believe Paul Reeve’s “full-throated” denunciation was toned down in the essay to allow any belief about the ban.

I wrote a paper on fallibility, analyzing what the Brethren said about it in Journal of Discourses (they had *a lot* to say on the matter).

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/well-nigh-as-dangerous#en1

While, as B.H. Roberts said, “It is well nigh as dangerous to claim too much for the inspiration of God in the affairs of men as it is to claim too little.” He said “I pause in doubt as to which extreme would be the worse.” What I see happening with some vocal apologists in online discussions is a swing to the far extreme of fallibility. There is a lot of overlap (like nearly universal) between these online apologists and people who deny much or most historicity of people, places, and events in the scriptures. This is mostly an online phenomenon, and is not a position that engenders intensity of commitment and conviction. This is why it will never become a mainstream or dominant belief or approach among rank-and-file members *or* the Brethren, I think. There are very good reasons why the Brethren continue to be very much literalists in terms of scriptural people, places, and events (e.g., The Flood, Abraham, Elijah, Isaiah, Book of Mormon, etc.). And, I see attempts to blunt concerns or criticism for things like polygamy or the priesthood ban by simply waving them away due to fallibility as being essentially the same.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I assume we're talking about Brigham's prophecy of after all the others receive the blessings of the priesthood stuff.  If so, then to consider this a fulfillment of that prophecy has to be a joke, right?  

I think that some people assume that he meant "at the end of time" when he said "after all the children of Abel have received their priesthood." It is clear from other statements he made (including one 116 years before the ban ended) that he foresaw a day when this would happen long before the "winding up scene." Other contemporaries, like Wilford Woodruff, foresaw a day when the seed of Ham would receive temple blessings. 

No, these, and other statements President Kimball referred to were not a joke. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If the ban was man made then the 1978 revelation was misunderstood by those who received it when they wrote:

"Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood"

 

The revelation was not considered a correction, but the fulfillment of prophecies, prophecies given by God to his prophets.  

It seems somewhat illogical that God would inspire his approved early prophets to predict the end of the ban and provide his current  prophet a revelation confirming the time to fulfill those prophecies had arrived if it were an error from the start.

There are many ways to contextualize a revelation and that was the context that made sense in 1978. But the revelation itself didn't contain any of that preamble, or any words at all for that matter.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Gray

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think that some people assume that he meant "at the end of time" when he said "after all the children of Abel have received their priesthood." It is clear from other statements he made (including one 116 years before the ban ended) that he foresaw a day when this would happen long before the "winding up scene." Other contemporaries, like Wilford Woodruff, foresaw a day when the seed of Ham would receive temple blessings. 

No, these, and other statements President Kimball referred to were not a joke. 

If so, he's either extremely ignorant about who are the children of Abel and who are of Cain--if these two actually existed, then everyone is a child of both, most likely.  If so, then it can't seriously be taken as a prophecy.  I do not assume he meant anything near at the end of time. 

 

Quote

When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity. He deprived his brother of the privilege of pursuing his journey through life, and of extending his kingdom by multiplying upon the earth; and because he did this, he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 143; photo below p. 26).

Preaching in 1859, at the October Conference of the LDS Church, Brigham Young declared:

Cain slew his brother . . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. . . . How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 290-291; photo below p. 27).

On another occasion, Young maintained:

The Lamanites or Indians are just as much the children of our Father and God as we are. So also are the Africans. But we are also the children of adoption through obedience to the Gospel of his Son. Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a s[k]in of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272; photo below p. 28).

Are we saying that all the other children of Adam had received their blessings in the Priesthood, were resurrected?  I find the whole of his words laughable now on a number of fronts.  I don't mean to mock though, but I am curious...in what way were we all resurrected before 1978?

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

There are many ways to contextualize a revelation and that was the context that made sense in 1978. But the revelation itself didn't contain any of that preamble, or any words at all for that matter.

True.
It was one of those "confirmation of prayer" experiences.  So it would be based on what the prayer offered consisted of.

The important issue in this subtopic concerning the ban (at least to my mind) is if the 1978 revelation was not a rebuke and didn't come by way of correction of error but instead as an answer to prayer, then we really have no doctrinal leg to stand on in asserting that God had nothing to do with the ban or that the ban was a mistake.
 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If so, he's either extremely ignorant about who are the children of Abel and who are of Cain--if these two actually existed, then everyone is a child of both, most likely.  If so, then it can't seriously be taken as a prophecy.  I do not assume he meant anything near at the end of time. 

Then why do you focus on statements that mention the resurrection? Isn't that "end of time" for you?

Are we saying that all the other children of Adam had received their blessings in the Priesthood, were resurrected?

Like I said. He made other statements that demonstrate that he thought it would be before the resurrection.

I find the whole of his words laughable now on a number of fronts.  I don't mean to mock though, but I am curious...in what way were we all resurrected before 1978?

See above. I think it's clear that he felt that, in a future day, after all of Abel's descendants had had the opportunity to receive the priesthood (however he envisioned or defined this), the ban would be lifted. 

I'm glad that you don't think he taught that this wouldn't be until the end of time, though.  

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

See above. I think it's clear that he felt that, in a future day, after all of Abel's descendants had had the opportunity to receive the priesthood (however he envisioned or defined this), the ban would be lifted. 

I'm glad that you don't think he taught that this wouldn't be until the end of time, though.  

Well, as far as we know (and the OT genealogies were pretty specific concerning Seth and Cain) Abel had no descendants.

So the speculation has always been that it referred to a future existence, inasmuch as Brigham also taught eternal progression.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I assume we're talking about Brigham's prophecy of after all the others receive the blessings of the priesthood stuff.  If so, then to consider this a fulfillment of that prophecy has to be a joke, right?   But you raise an interesting point, either Brigham and all those who were with him, considered him a prophet and thus offered similar confirming messages were speaking out of their caboose, or the leaders who penned the announcement in '78 were speaking out fo their caboose, or all of them were together speaking out of their cabooses.  The last idea seems most likely, since up until June '78 they were as with Brigham and company as anyone else.  And if so, then the announcement in '78 was less about announcing a prophecy and more about covering their cabooses, which they for some reason felt the need to speak out of.  

It seems most logical to conclude the whole episode represents:

Men presuming to speak authoritatively on topics they know nothing about, and passing it off as coming from God.

And the bold is called taking the Lord's name in vain.http://credohouse.org/blog/taking-the-lords-name-in-vain-what-does-it-really-mean This is a short quote from this article. I wonder if it embarrassed or angered God to have this ban in his name?

"Using the name of the Lord in vain is a serious matter. It damages His reputation and character through false and unsure claims. Before you say “God said…” make sure He really said it.

If you are unsure, make your statement reflect your uncertainty. Saying “I think God is telling you to…” rather than “God is telling you to…” may not be as authoritative, but it will keep God’s reputation safe and keep you from breaking the third commandment.

If I were Satan, I couldn’t think of a better way to trivialize such an important commandment."

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

Then why do you focus on statements that mention the resurrection? Isn't that "end of time" for you?

 

 

Like I said. He made other statements that demonstrate that he thought it would be before the resurrection.

 

 

See above. I think it's clear that he felt that, in a future day, after all of Abel's descendants had had the opportunity to receive the priesthood (however he envisioned or defined this), the ban would be lifted. 

I'm glad that you don't think he taught that this wouldn't be until the end of time, though.  

Hey Rongo.  I've never interpreted people's resurrection to be the end of time.  I suppose the use of end of time confused me, as it doesn't seem BY said that, nor thought that.  Wasn't sure where you were getting this from.  That feels completely irrelevant.  

So let's get back to it, how can you possibly see any of Brigham's claims as it relates to the lifting of this "curse" which the Church has now disavowed, BTW, having been fulfilled in 1978?  Just focusing on the couple of quotes I offered he indicates:

1.  "when all the children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the priesthood..."  supposing that mean suggest all the children of Adam besides those that are black.

2.  "when all the children of Adam...have received the resurrection from the dead".

3.  "they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof"

4.  "Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood."

5. "And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to"

I don't see any of the above being fulfilled even today, let alone 1978.  Do you?  If so, how so?  

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And the bold is called taking the Lord's name in vain.https://relevantmagazine.com/god/what-taking-lords-name-vain-actually-means

indeed.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's a tapestry issue.  Start pulling on one thread (remove any involvement of God in the ban) and it inevitably cause other elements to unravel  (prophecy, 1978 revelation, other scriptures).

I think the problem is that in this case the sources were unclear. Brigham didn't present it as him merely interpreting scripture. He presented it as the word of God. Now maybe today historians would say that clearly it's a combination of Southern slavery apologetic as a way of reading Genesis combined with later Nauvoo theology. Thus Brigham is saying it's the word of God because he's reading it the Bible and Joseph Smith's teachings. Then later groups see Brigham teaching it as the word of God and assume it is. It seems like a natural progression.

This happens with lots of doctrines. As you start investigating some doctrines have more grounding in formal revelation than others. Often doctrines are inferred from ambiguous scripture that seems clear because that's how people had read it for decades or more. So take things like spirit birth or even the nature of spirits. Well known teachings without a lot behind them. Or take anti-evolutionary, anti-geological interpretations of scripture with regards to Noah, the creation, or dispersal of peoples. Still in manuals but not a lot (IMO) to justify it. Then there are common misreadings like D&C 131 taken to imply three divisions in the Celestial Kingdom due to the way the fragmentary notes were expanded in the D&C. And so on.

People give canon and frequently repeated statements by the brethren the benefit of doubt. Completely understandable but typically there's not a clear revelation for such matters. I think the Church has actually the past few years gotten much better about distinguishing what's a commonly held tradition from something with clear revelation. 

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So let's get back to it, how can you possibly see any of Brigham's claims as it relates to the lifting of this "curse" which the Church has now disavowed, BTW, having been fulfilled in 1978?  Just focusing on the couple of quotes I offered he indicates:

1.  "when all the children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the priesthood..."  supposing that mean suggest all the children of Adam besides those that are black.

2.  "when all the children of Adam...have received the resurrection from the dead".

3.  "they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof"

4.  "Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood."

5. "And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to"

I don't see any of the above being fulfilled even today, let alone 1978.  Do you?  If so, how so?  

Without embracing this interpretation which I don't share, however recalling how this was frequently discussed at BYU in the 90's you get something like this. You break out all the major races. Missionary work had gone to all of them from the pacific Islands, to China, and everywhere else. Thus all other races "have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the priesthood" largely thanks to the international Church that started with McKay and really got going in the 60's. 

So you're interpreting Young's comments as referring to individual people whereas if you instead interpret it as groups or peoples then it's fulfilled by McKay's international missionary program.

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, as far as we know (and the OT genealogies were pretty specific concerning Seth and Cain) Abel had no descendants.

So the speculation has always been that it referred to a future existence, inasmuch as Brigham also taught eternal progression.

I happen to be reading a book, “A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived” by Adam Rutherford, which shares the latest genetic research demonstrating that “the most recent common ancestor of everyone alive today on Earth lived only around 3,400 years ago.” http://nautil.us/issue/56/perspective/youre-descended-from-royalty-and-so-is-everybody-else

This is interesting to me in that it seems to render the tenuous relationship between genealogy and race (if there is any) irrelevant for modern peoples, but also in that the approximate number of years between the Exodus and 1978 AD is 3,400! Priesthood restrictions then, among God's people in the various ages of His kingdom on earth, seem to have turned out to be only temporal, as roughly rendered through biological, constructs.

[Gray]

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

True.
It was one of those "confirmation of prayer" experiences.  So it would be based on what the prayer offered consisted of.

The important issue in this subtopic concerning the ban (at least to my mind) is if the 1978 revelation was not a rebuke and didn't come by way of correction of error but instead as an answer to prayer, then we really have no doctrinal leg to stand on in asserting that God had nothing to do with the ban or that the ban was a mistake.
 

There's no doctrinal leg to stand on for establishing the ban's validity to begin with, though.

[rongo]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So let's get back to it, how can you possibly see any of Brigham's claims as it relates to the lifting of this "curse" which the Church has now disavowed, BTW, having been fulfilled in 1978? 

As has been pointed out in these discussions, ad nauseum, the explanations for the ban were "disavowed" in the essay --- not the ban itself. I will consider them "disavowed" when the Brethren themselves say so, not because they anonymously printed Paul Reeve's essay. 

I find the use of the word "disavow" interesting, compared to others that could have been used instead. When a military or intelligence mission is "disavowed," it happened --- it's just that the government or agency is officially refusing to acknowledge or address its existence (cue Tom Cruise shouting "Disavow! Disavow!" in a Mission Impossible episode). Approval of the word "disavow" is part of the strategy of using an anonymous esay that allows a range of beliefs about the ban. It purposely stops short of, say, "repudiating" or "condemning" the ban (stronger words than "disavow").

Quote

I don't see any of the above being fulfilled even today, let alone 1978.  Do you?  If so, how so? 

I see it similar to other prophecies that are fulfilled "good enough," but short of a rigid interpretation. Examples: "the gospel going to every people before the 2nd coming" What qualifies as the gospel being taken to every people? I think fulfillment of this will involve the nominal presence of the gospel in some sense, without full and open access or freedom to openly practice. Or, I can conceive of the Jerusalem temple being the Jerusalem Center re-dedicated as a temple, rather than razing the Dome of the Rock. That would be "good enough" and "close enough" for me.  

I think the priesthood ban was similar. I think Brigham Young and others envisioned a time bound by restrictions such as what you pointed out (Abel's descendants, resurrection, etc.), but what President Kimball and the quorums accepted in 1978 was simply looking at the bigger picture that the statements had, in fact, pointed at a future time. "Good enough," "close enough." 

ETA: Clark Goble's post right above mine does a good job of applying this to peoples in general rather than specific individuals. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by rongo

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

There's no doctrinal leg to stand on for establishing the ban's validity to begin with, though.

There is in the Pearl of Great Price. I know some want the Church to physically remove them out of the canon, but they are there, and they were there whenever the ban originated (whether one sees that in Joseph Smith's time or not until 1852). And it is undeniable that how these passages were interpreted (the plainest and least-subject to wresting) is in lock step with the rationales and doctrinal underpinning for the ban. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Without embracing this interpretation which I don't share, however recalling how this was frequently discussed at BYU in the 90's you get something like this. You break out all the major races. Missionary work had gone to all of them from the pacific Islands, to China, and everywhere else. Thus all other races "have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the priesthood" largely thanks to the international Church that started with McKay and really got going in the 60's. 

So you're interpreting Young's comments as referring to individual people whereas if you instead interpret it as groups or peoples then it's fulfilled by McKay's international missionary program.

Considering BY's words, what in there indicates that this is not referring to all of Adam's seed who were not cursed?  I mean it's a nice enough spin on it, because we have no other way to make his prophecies apply, but there's no reason to add that spin.  He doesn't suggest as much.  It's just a way of trying to make him say that which he did not say, it seems to me.  Go ahead, convince me.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

As has been pointed out in these discussions, ad nauseum, the explanations for the ban were "disavowed" in the essay --- not the ban itself. I will consider them "disavowed" when the Brethren themselves say so, not because they anonymously printed Paul Reeve's essay. 

I find the use of the word "disavow" interesting, compared to others that could have been used instead. When a military or intelligence mission is "disavowed," it happened --- it's just that the government or agency is officially refusing to acknowledge or address its existence (cue Tom Cruise shouting "Disavow! Disavow!" in a Mission Impossible episode). Approval of the word "disavow" is part of the strategy of using an anonymous that allows a range of beliefs about the ban. It purposely stops short of, say, "repudiating" or "condemning" the ban (stronger words than "disavow").

Fine by me.  Continue to believe there was a curse that was lifted, then.  

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

 

I see it similar to other prophecies that are fulfilled "good enough," but short of a rigid interpretation. Examples: "the gospel going to every people before the 2nd coming" What qualifies as the gospel being taken to every people? I think fulfillment of this will involve the nominal presence of the gospel in some sense, without full and open access or freedom to openly practice. Or, I can conceive of the Jerusalem temple being the Jerusalem Center re-dedicated as a temple, rather than razing the Dome of the Rock. That would be "good enough" and "close enough" for me.  

I think the priesthood ban was similar. I think Brigham Young and others envisioned a time bound by restrictions such as what you pointed out (Abel's descendants, resurrection, etc.), but what President Kimball and the quorums accepted in 1978 was simply looking at the bigger picture that the statements had, in fact, pointed at a future time. "Good enough," "close enough." 

Ok.  So we just kind of dismiss it as a bit of exaggeration or embellishment.  I guess it sure makes the fulfillment of prophecy an easy task.  I was reading in the first volume of the JSP the other day and happened upon a claim by Joseph suggesting all of his prophecies had been fulfilled.  It was early on for Mormonism at that time and wondered what he thought was fulfilled by then.  I suppose in a way, the way you approach this feels similar.  

Some seem to be approaching this as seeing a need to redefine prophets, and prophecy.  No offense intended here, but I will say it feels to me like no matter what anyone says about the future, following the logic you are giving, all of it is legit prophecy just needing something to happen to make it appear whatever was said is close enough to what happens.  

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Considering BY's words, what in there indicates that this is not referring to all of Adam's seed who were not cursed?  I mean it's a nice enough spin on it, because we have no other way to make his prophecies apply, but there's no reason to add that spin.  He doesn't suggest as much.  It's just a way of trying to make him say that which he did not say, it seems to me.  Go ahead, convince me.

The obvious one is that he's talking of peoples with the people of Cain as one people. It's the people that are last. Now if you want something more explicit, it's not there. But I'd say that just means it's at best ambiguous. 

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It seems somewhat illogical that God would inspire his approved early prophets to predict the end of the ban and provide his current  prophet a revelation confirming the time to fulfill those prophecies had arrived if it were an error from the start.

 

That's a lot of conjecture.

It's entirely possible for God to extend a revelation to end a man-made mistake.  Hopefully He would.  There could be any number of reasons He didn't do it sooner.

Of course, the fact that it happened in June of 1978 alone argues against the divine origin of the ban.  Once you take away the option of explaining the ban as an ancient curse marked by dark skin, or a curse upon certain spirits sent to specific bodies marked by dark skin, you're left with "For some reason, God didn't want the black people of presumed African descent living on the planet in 1977 to have the Priesthood, and He just never got around to telling Church leaders, or the excluded black people, what was going on."

Okay, fine.  We accept that on faith.  God is great, just, all-knowing, and "all are alike unto God," except all the black people of presumed African descent living on the planet from 1852 - 1978.  Then something happens in 1978.  About halfway through the year, suddenly everyone who wasn't eligible to receive the priesthood are now eligible to receive the priesthood.  That's a wonderful, tear-inducing change in policy.  But what does it mean?

We all understand that a man can do something that makes him ineligible to receive or use the Priesthood, and men and women can do things that make them ineligible to receive Temple blessings.  They can sin, and no longer use the Priesthood or attend the Temple until they have repented.  But in June of 1978, all the living black people on the Earth were presumably no more or less righteous than they had been in May, but suddenly they can have the Priesthood and go to the Temple. 

And all this happens without God ever bothering to explain to the Church leaders or banned members why it was happening.  Instead, he allows false scriptures and theories to be taught repeatedly and officially for decades, perpetuating the worst forms of racism in an era when, entirely coincidentally, society was already tremendously racist against the very same people!

So the question of whether or not God was behind the ban is really a choice between two equally awful and stupid scenarios.

Edited May 14, 2018 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

The obvious one is that he's talking of peoples with the people of Cain as one people. It's the people that are last. Now if you want something more explicit, it's not there. But I'd say that just means it's at best ambiguous. 

When he refers to the children of Cain, it seems to show his ignorance more than anything.  An adopted seed of Cain?  I don't know.  It doesn't make any sense at all.  But I'm not sure that he even said people of Cain.  It seems he refers to those that are cursed as the seed of Cain.  But again, I don't see how this warrants the interpretation that BY meant the priesthood blessings will be had for a few people when he said all of them.