The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not about sin, it's about obedience to law D&C 130.  It is very strange that we would believe that our obedience to eternal laws her would impact our resurrection but our obedience there wouldn't impact our mortal birth.  After all, 1/3 parts actions there denied them a mortal birth at all.

Yes, but as far as the teachings in the scriptures, mortality was the only thing that was denied because of disobedience before birth.  Or am i forgetting something (I could be, I'm no scriptorian)?  Are there scriptures that teach that obedience to God get's people a better deal at birth?

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We don't teach that at all today though, in regards to any kind of pre-existing condition, and the bible specifically teaches that physical ailments are not present at birth due to sin.  

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. One could list a long litany of prophet statements about being reserved for the latter-days, and these are still taught. 

As I've said often, to "disavow" explanations that are unpopular with some due to political correctness, but to eagerly accept them with respect to positive "mortality placement," is inconsistent and hypocritical. 

Quote

I think that most people reject this because it's a very slippery slope where anything from being born in poverty, being born to abusive parents, being born with a disability, being born out of the church, and/or being born in a 3rd world country could be interpreted as caused by the person having sinned in the pre-mortal existence.

I don't think it's sin (at least not for me). It's much more a function of the pre-existence being similar to mortality being similar to post-mortal progression. People have always progressed at different rates, they do now, and they will after the resurrection, too.

Nothing in mortality can really be explained without caprice, whim, and arbitrariness without the pre-existence impacting mortality. Those decrying the ban want to exclude the ban from this, while accepting positive "placement" items (born in the gospel, born in the U.S., born after the Restoration, born with access to the Church, etc.).

Edited May 14, 2018 by rongo

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but as far as the teachings in the scriptures, mortality was the only thing that was denied because of disobedience before birth.  Or am i forgetting something (I could be, I'm no scriptorian)?  Are there scriptures that teach that obedience to God get's people a better deal at birth?

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

---

This is stated in positive terms, but it goes without saying that the opposite is also true: since there were many noble and great ones, there were also ones who weren't so noble and great. And everything in between. Shades and degrees of variation. Some to rule, and some to serve. And everything in between. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and Realpolitik and expediency might be the Lord's way, or maybe not.  He might simply wait on his people to get right first as a function of their faith or lack of it.  At the same time, what was that in Sunday School (Mother's Day) about Israel crossing the Jordan and being commanded by God to kill everybody and every animal without mercy?  So much for our forbears.

You are no doubt correct to suggest that Mormons were soft racists, since they weren't known for lynching Black people.  The ones I have met were against intermarriage (micegenation) even with brown-skinned people, but I never saw them froth at the mouth.  😎

I don’t think the examples of expediency that I gave from the D&C constitute realpolitik, and do I see the Race and Priesthood essay condemning soft racism, so I did not intend to provoke those reactions. I prefer to stay out of the rhetoric, which is why I posted as I did: I asked my question, and then brought up other points about the Lord’s grace in answering the prophets despite their assumptions and perceptions about the restriction (would you say less developed than yours was at the time?), what genetics is showing about the inheritability of “race” (apples and oranges) and the timing for pedigree collapse vis-à-vis any particular biblical line, cursed or blessed, indicating that the scriptural restrictions and curses were time-limited and that anyone would someday be Israel.

Edited May 14, 2018 by CV75

[cinepro]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

--

This is stated in positive terms, but it goes without saying that the opposite is also true: since there were many noble and great ones, there were also ones who weren't so noble and great. And everything in between. Shades and degrees of variation. Some to rule, and some to serve. And everything in between. 

It's not a problem in principle.  It's a problem in application.

And as I pointed out, it became more of a problem in 1978.  If you're correct and the Priesthood and Temple ban was related to pre-mortal actions, then what happened in 1978? 

In the play "The Book of Mormon" there is a song where a believing Elder sings "And I believe, that in 1978 God changed His mind about black people!"  I presume it gets a good laugh, but that's exactly what you are suggesting!  Someone who was restricted in 1977 didn't change in 1978 (at least not to the degree it would have changed the course of the ban).  It was God who changed His mind. 

There is also the awful corollary to your theory.  Since the ban was based on presumed race and skin color (and not individuals, which the scripture refers to), then it would also be true that there are presumed races and skin colors that could be more favored of God.   If you think you can believe that and not be racist, you are wrong.  It's another tragedy in all this that the ban gave so many people permission to believe racist things and think it was okay because God wanted them to believe it.  "I'm not racist.  I don't want to believe that black people are cursed and inferior, and that people with white skin are more favored of God and more valiant.  That's what the scriptures teach, so I must believe it, even if I normally wouldn't."

Edited May 15, 2018 by cinepro

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

---

This is stated in positive terms, but it goes without saying that the opposite is also true: since there were many noble and great ones, there were also ones who weren't so noble and great. And everything in between. Shades and degrees of variation. Some to rule, and some to serve. And everything in between. 

I think you are forgetting that those verses do not remove agency from any of the noble and great ones.  Someone is not a ruler in God's kingdom against their will.  Their choices on earth dictate whether or not they will be chosen (after all, many are called, but few are chosen).  In your theology though, agency is removed from the equation.  You are advocating that people are cursed against their will and despite their earthly choices, something which these verses absolutely do not support.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you are forgetting that those verses do not remove agency from any of the noble and great ones.  Someone is not a ruler in God's kingdom against their will.  Their choices on earth dictate whether or not they will be chosen (after all, many are called, but few are chosen).  In your theology though, agency is removed from the equation.  You are advocating that people are cursed against their will and despite their earthly choices, something which these verses absolutely do not support.

 

Plus "rulers" tends to make it sound like it was the exception and not the rule, given there aren't that many actual rulers (if one is talking about top leadership in organizations that "rule").  Blacks are currently about 1/6 of the world's population (if quora and wiki are accurate), what about the rest of the majority of the 5/6s that aren't rulers (if one assumes a more immediate descending from African ancestors than all of humanity is needed for the "curse" to be applied).  Are/were they cursed in some way or simply born into the situation they were born into?  Me, I go for the later.  So I don't see the need to appeal to the preexistence for the 1/6 either.

Also, I think if there were any assignment of the most faithful in the preexistence to groups, it would likely not be the groups that are blessed with good fortune and thus generally have an easier life that likely is less intense pressure on one's faith, but rather the groups that are oppressed and have a greater struggle to overcome because those faithful are the spirits that would be less likely damaged imo long term by hardship (I don't see today's white middle class americans to be a group that has extreme hardships generally speaking, hardships are often a result of wealth...health problems can often be treated so we don't immediately die, but suffering then is prolonged, for one example).

Edited May 15, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/13/2018 at 5:50 PM, CMZ said:

We have to be careful about statements like that. The ban began in vagary but ended in clarity. We may not be totally certain how it began (although there is indeed some historical information about it), but when we know of instances of later leaders wanting to rescind the ban but feeling that they were directed by the Lord not to yet then I think it makes it hard to claim that the ban came about due to racism. I believe other reasoning was involved (although that doesn't mean that there have never ever been some leaders with perhaps some trace of racism to them).

I think that we need to be more cynical than that, and to allow for gross error, same as in ancient Israel.  Humans have some pretty awful flaws, and getting past that may take a lot of time. Then too, God may become cynical about the likelihood of repentance and obedience, allowing all of us (including the prophets) to stew in their own juices for a time.  I tend to think that God became disgusted with his Saints and allowed a couple of evil generations to pass before listening to a sincere request for action.   After all, no revelation comes without someone to seek it.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think the examples of expediency that I gave from the D&C constitute realpolitik, and do I see the Race and Priesthood essay condemning soft racism, so I did not intend to provoke those reactions. I prefer to stay out of the rhetoric, which is why I posted as I did: I asked my question, and then brought up other points about the Lord’s grace in answering the prophets despite their assumptions and perceptions about the restriction (would you say less developed than yours was at the time?), what genetics is showing about the inheritability of “race” (apples and oranges) and the timing for pedigree collapse vis-à-vis any particular biblical line, cursed or blessed, indicating that the scriptural restrictions and curses were time-limited and that anyone would someday be Israel.

Not sure I buy any of that.  However, it doesn't really matter, since I probably would have been just as racist as those 19th century Saints who thought that Brother Brigham hit the nail on the head every time he denigrated the negro.  Most LDS leaders simply followed along with that until some of them started asking for answers.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm more concerned with doctrine and the word of God than how the ban is viewed by history etc 

There is no evidence God considered the ban a shortcoming.  Don't really care what society thinks.

So Gordon B. Hinckley was misinformed to say that "I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ."

And the LDS Church website falsely declares that "The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church." 

 So Joseph Smith must have been wrong to say that "Nothing can reclaim the human mind from its ignorance, bigotry, superstition &c but those grand and sublime principles of equal rights and universal freedom to all men."

Joseph was mistaken to say:

Quote

Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.  History of the Church, 5:217.

And (according to you) the current LDS Gospel Topics Essay on "Race and the Priesthood" is wrong to say that "There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime."

There is simply nothing about the ban which is in keeping with the Gospel, except of course that you offer your non-factual and irrational disagreement.

I wasn't speaking about the offhand opinion of the hoi polloi, but rather of factual history.

[rongo]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you are forgetting that those verses do not remove agency from any of the noble and great ones.  

Why do you think I am forgetting that? I have never argued that people don't have agency at any stage. In fact, I believe that our exercised agency in the pre-existence impacts mortality, our exercised agency on earth impacts the hereafter, and our exercised agency in the hereafter impacts exaltation. I have no idea why you are imputing this to me.

Someone is not a ruler in God's kingdom against their will.

I completely agree. I believe that many have been called who are not chosen. Pre-existence, earth, and yet to come. Where are you getting that I believe chosen people have no will?

Their choices on earth dictate whether or not they will be chosen (after all, many are called, but few are chosen).

Absolutely. Why the Abscheu for pre-mortal agency, though? Where are you getting that from?

 

In your theology though, agency is removed from the equation.  You are advocating that people are cursed against their will and despite their earthly choices

Aaaaarrrrggggghhhhh! Where are you getting this from? I am arguing that the exercise of pre-mortal agency affects mortality. And that their earthly choices impact the hereafter. Does "your theology" not contain this?

something which these verses absolutely do not support.

These verses pertain to the pre-existence. 

[ttribe]

@rongo and @JLHPROF

Why the need to defend the ban so strenuously?  Why is this so important to you?

Genuine questions; not interested in playing any gotcha games.

[Calm]

This could be interesting:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/14/top-mormon-leaders-to-meet-with-naacps-national-officers/

Quote

In a potent symbol of openness, the LDS Church’s governing First Presidency will meet Thursday in Salt Lake City with national officers of the NAACP.

After the two sets of leaders huddle, they will issue “a joint statement,” according to a news release from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why do you think I am forgetting that? I have never argued that people don't have agency at any stage. In fact, I believe that our exercised agency in the pre-existence impacts mortality, our exercised agency on earth impacts the hereafter, and our exercised agency in the hereafter impacts exaltation. I have no idea why you are imputing this to me.

 

 

I completely agree. I believe that many have been called who are not chosen. Pre-existence, earth, and yet to come. Where are you getting that I believe chosen people have no will?

 

 

Absolutely. Why the Abscheu for pre-mortal agency, though? Where are you getting that from?

 

 

Aaaaarrrrggggghhhhh! Where are you getting this from? I am arguing that the exercise of pre-mortal agency affects mortality. And that their earthly choices impact the hereafter. Does "your theology" not contain this?

 

 

These verses pertain to the pre-existence. 

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. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

@rongo and @JLHPROF

Why the need to defend the ban so strenuously?  Why is this so important to you?

Genuine questions; not interested in playing any gotcha games.

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").

Edited May 15, 2018 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

8 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.

Are you employing the same "God wouldn't do that" argument when you say "it makes no sense doctrinally to believe God disapproved..."?  Why is it, at least around this joint, that everyone who disagrees with one here is said to be trying "to make God in their image"?  It seems to me you are making God in you image just as anyone who thinks the ban should not have been.  Look, my good man, I hear ya.  I don't think your a complete nutjob for thinking the way you do, but to resort to something akin to anyone who disagrees with me is just trying to make God in their image is silly.  It lacks self-awareness.  That's what anyone who has any desire to believe in a god does.  Sure some of us feel more convinced from certain scriptural passages and assume God was behind them while ignoring others.  And everyone does it differently and in their own way.  

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 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.

And he doesn't share your current moral compass either.  He very well could have sat idly by and let humans mess up...why?  Because he does it all the time..apparently.  If he's there at all most of what he does is sit there while humans mess things up.  

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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").

There is no recorded revelation at all that God ended the ban.  There is no revelation that suggested the ban should be implemented, other than what, it seems, is a misreading of scripture--scripture conjured up in the minds of men.   When the ending of the ban is explained it basically seems to me to be nothing more than a bunch of guys feeling good to stop a destructive practice.  It was far more about being unable to sustain the old tradition in the modern world than it was about revelation.  I dont' mind saying that.  There's no revelation we can see to know otherwise.  no one's trying to make God in their image any more than you.  God didn't speak words about it to us and it doesn't appear he did so to anyone.  

[rongo]

9 hours ago, ttribe said:

@rongo and @JLHPROF

Why the need to defend the ban so strenuously?  Why is this so important to you?

Genuine questions; not interested in playing any gotcha games.

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?

[rongo]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

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. 

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 find it hard to believe that Latter-day Saints anywhere would believe that.

Quote

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 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. 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?

Edited May 15, 2018 by rongo

[stemelbow]

21 minutes 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?

There was some guy year's ago let go at BYU for teaching the types of things you seem to espouse as it relates to this issue.  Why are you saying the Church is not taking a side?  They have clearly said the teaching that people are less valiant in the Pre-earth world is wrong.  

Quote

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form

Remember?

You are opposed to current Church teaching because you prefer former church teaching.  Fine.  Dandy.  But, just know, it is in opposition to the Church you love.

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There was some guy year's ago let go at BYU for teaching the types of things you seem to espouse as it relates to this issue.  Why are you saying the Church is not taking a side?  They have clearly said the teaching that people are less valiant in the Pre-earth world is wrong.  

I have said nothing about being less-valiant. We (myself included) have no idea what factors factored into our mortal assignments. It may well be that certain people were put into what appear to us to be disadvantageous circumstances because of their strengths and demonstrated ability. All I am saying is that I believe that the pre-existence most certainly does impact mortality. And that has not been "disavowed." 

I await to hear whether bluebell and others really believe that our mortality "placement" is 100% random chance or luck, with no consideration at all given to the pre-existence. Or whether other things are affected, just not race.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have said nothing about being less-valiant. We (myself included) have no idea what factors factored into our mortal assignments. It may well be that certain people were put into what appear to us to be disadvantageous circumstances because of their strengths and demonstrated ability. All I am saying is that I believe that the pre-existence most certainly does impact mortality. And that has not been "disavowed." 

I await to hear whether bluebell and others really believe that our mortality "placement" is 100% random chance or luck, with no consideration at all given to the pre-existence. Or whether other things are affected, just not race.

I guess I'm reading you wrong.  I see this:

Quote

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.

And assume you mean that you have been blessed due to your choices and actions before this world was, which also suggests others are not blessed in their earthly condition because of their lacking of good choices and actions pre-earth.  It feels to me you are just contradicting yourself by saying you don't think there were less valiant spirits pre-earth that helps define their condition here.  

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I guess I'm reading you wrong.  I see this:

And assume you mean that you have been blessed due to your choices and actions before this world was, which also suggests others are not blessed in their earthly condition because of their lacking of good choices and actions pre-earth.  It feels to me you are just contradicting yourself by saying you don't think there were less valiant spirits pre-earth that helps define their condition here.  

I think it is sometimes a factor, but not always. 

One point Hugh Nibley made in response to Lester Bush was that if you look at all of the black children throughout history who died before reaching the age of accountability, there are millions and possibly billions throughout history who are instant heirs of the celestial kingdom, according to our theology. So, in essence, these children (of any race, but it includes a significant number of black children) were sent to earth in circumstances that guaranteed them entrance into the celestial kingdom. 

I don't think any would argue that they were not valiant in the pre-existence. Would you?

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it is sometimes a factor, but not always. 

One point Hugh Nibley made in response to Lester Bush was that if you look at all of the black children throughout history who died before reaching the age of accountability, there are millions and possibly billions throughout history who are instant heirs of the celestial kingdom, according to our theology. So, in essence, these children (of any race, but it includes a significant number of black children) were sent to earth in circumstances that guaranteed them entrance into the celestial kingdom. 

I don't think any would argue that they were not valiant in the pre-existence. Would you?

Well...I'm not following.  You said "we have no idea what factors..."  just as confidently as you say "it is sometimes a factor..."  and "we absolutely *do* teach that our choices and actions in the pre-existence blessed us with Israelite lineage".  I see too much inconsistency in your three stated positions here.  

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well...I'm not following.  You said "we have no idea what factors..."  just as confidently as you say "it is sometimes a factor..."  and "we absolutely *do* teach that our choices and actions in the pre-existence blessed us with Israelite lineage".  I see too much inconsistency in your three stated positions here.  

Try this:

1) None of us knows for sure in the details. So we can't make an authoritative determination in individual cases.

2) The pre-existence undeniably impacts mortality in what appear to us to be positive and negative ways

3) But, since we don't remember the pre-existence, and we don't have access to the necessary details, see #1.

I don't see an inconsistency with, as you laid out, 1) we don't know for sure, but 2) things can sometimes be factors, and 3) we do teach that the pre-existence affects things like Israelite lineage.

Discussing this with you is complicated by the fact that you don't really believe a lot of things that believing LDS do. You seem to think a lot of these things are all hooey, either way? Right?

[stemelbow]

 

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Try this:

1) None of us knows for sure in the details. So we can't make an authoritative determination in individual cases.

2) The pre-existence undeniably impacts mortality in what appear to us to be positive and negative ways

3) But, since we don't remember the pre-existence, and we don't have access to the necessary details, see #1.

I don't see an inconsistency with, as you laid out, 1) we don't know for sure, but 2) things can sometimes be factors, and 3) we do teach that the pre-existence affects things like Israelite lineage.

Discussing this with you is complicated by the fact that you don't really believe a lot of things that believing LDS do. You seem to think a lot of these things are all hooey, either way? Right?

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.  

Well, I can deny it easily.  I don't think your 1,2, and 3 lay out what I quoted.  

I think I hold enough respect for people's beliefs to not just say "they are all hooey" even if I get a little exasperated at some people's thoughts as it relates to belief discussions from time to time.  I will say I think what is often proposed as undeniable truth, or absolutely true statements are not undeniable and are not absolute.  But such discussion of such topics really helps me in my own journey of faith, or not faith however one might characterize it.