CV75 Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 10 hours ago, Royce said: If it was only ever a "policy," as McKay claimed in the 50's, there was never any reason for a "revelation" to change it, and as merely a presidentially decreed "policy," it could have been abandoned any time after the passing of Brigham Young who pronounced it on his own authority. Of course there was a reason for a revelation to change it: where no revelation is documented we do what we think best with our good faith presumptions (in this case, either trust the practice was inspired or revealed or doctrinal or trust it was a good-faith, inspired or revealed policy -- doesn't matter); sometimes it takes a revelation to act with clarity! Absent a revelation we are not accountable for acting contrariwise until we have it.
Judd Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 On 5/23/2018 at 3:18 PM, aussieguy55 said: What does this indicate about claims it was a revelation or something more practical like the Brazil problem? Of the many important personal revelations I’ve received in my life, the way I received them initially led me to believe there was a different purpose for them. i.e. God’s reasoning for giving a revelation to build a temple in Brazil may have been much more broad than just building a temple.
theplains Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 On 5/22/2018 at 6:32 PM, aussieguy55 said: Years ago I had a letter exchange in 1972 with Dr Bennion and he spells out why he did not accept the negro priesthood ban and offered scriptures to back his case. What scriptures? Jim
Recommended Posts