Robert F. Smith Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: But doesn't that give you pause, if what you say is correct then that means so many prophets were wrong and adds to the list of revelations not being true, which means we have a lot of false prophets to beware of. I am not aware of any LDS revelations which were not true. Certainly even Brother Brigham didn't dare publish a revelation on the priesthood ban, even though he did publish D&C 136 (the Mormon Exodus). He talked about the ban (he invented it), but never wrote or canonized a revelation, which is why David O. McKay could not find one (even though he made a thorough search of the archives). And since then, no scholar has been able to find such a revelation. Prophets are fallible men and can certainly be wrong. In the case of the ban, it was a policy plain and simple. A wrong policy, but just a policy, not a revelation. Do false prophets give false revelations? Yes: Quote Zedekiah - the false prophet - advised King Ahab of Israel to attack the Syrian army at Ramoth Gilead (1 Kings 22:11). This Zedekiah, who was the son of Chenaanah, made himself horns of iron and said, "The Lord says, 'With these you shall gore Aram until you have destroyed them.'" Ahab's other false prophets all said the same thing. When Micaiah, a true prophet of God, was called on, he gave a disasterous prediction to the outcome of the battle for King Ahab and Israel. When Zedekiah heard this he slapped Micaiah on the cheek, saying, "Has the Spirit of the Lord, then, left me to speak with you?" (1 Kings 22:24). The battle, in which King Ahab was mortaly wounded, ended up as Micaiah predicted. The fate of Zedekiah is not written in the Bible after his false prophecy. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/p337.htmb . In the case of the prophets Lehi and Jeremiah, who both predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, they were opposed by false prophets, such as Hananiah (Jer 28), and others (Jer 23:16-17). Edited June 9, 2018 by Robert F. Smith
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 There is a great post on Wheat and Tares that provides evidence showing that President Oaks statement about a prompt and public disavowal of the reasons for the ban was not correct. https://wheatandtares.org/2018/06/04/promptly-and-publicly-disavowed-or-not/ I had mentioned the Randy Bott incident earlier in this thread but there was also, apparently another incident in 1998.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I take the view that the Mormon people themselves were the reason why the Lord took so long to speak and to come forth with a revelation on the subject. That is, owing to their failure to take seriously that part of the Gospel, and to live it, prevented the Lord from providing direction. The failures of ancient Israel had that same effect. The people simply were not yet ready. However, that is just speculation on my part. You may take that view if you wish, but at the end of the day, as you candidly acknowledge, it is scarcely more than speculation, and we’ve seen what trouble speculation has caused in the past, with misguided theories having to be disavowed with respect to the reason for the ban. Until the Almighty sees fit to pour out further light and knowledge on the matter, I’ll take the position the Church does: No one knows the reason. Edited June 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 10 hours ago, blueglass said: "we don't know" is a position of laziness. "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." D&C88:118. If we do no studying and simply inquire of the Lord then we will fail. "you took no thought save it was to ask me." D&Cov9:7. It is exemplary of the position of laman and lemuel who said, "Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive-tree, and also concerning the Gentiles. 8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord? 9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us. " "10 Wherefore, come ye unto it, and with him that cometh I will reason as with men in days of old, and I will show unto you my strong reasoning." D&Cov 45:10 To clutch to the "we don't know" position is to give Harold B. Lee a high five when he said in his April 1961 talk rebuking historians, "Somehow a little lapse or a little failure to research properly they had reached a conclusion that they had wanted to reach - to make it appear as though something had been done away a way back that we have departed from and therefore ought to be set in order." There are no reputable scholars who support this 1969 "we don't know" position. At least the 1949 first presidency statement although not in agreement with the Lord was in agreement with Brigham Young. As Edward Kimball wrote, "For Brigham Young, the matter was uncomplicated." The response I just posted to Robert applies here as well.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 13 hours ago, Teancum said: Scott This is fine for those who have an unwavering faith and devotion to whatever seems to come from the LDS Church leadership. But the questions asked that you responded to were good questions. How does your simple dismissal above solve anything or create a dialogue on the issue? 13 hours ago, Teancum said: And that doesn't mean that at times what the say is not contradictory nor does it make it true. Please see my response to Robert, alluded to in my response to Blueglass.
blueglass Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Until the Almighty sees fit to pour out further light and knowledge on the matter, I’ll take the position the Church does: No one knows the reason. d&cov131:5-6, (May 17th, 1843.) The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood. 6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance." ignorantia - Latin ‘not knowing’ 1john5:13"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life." Gal 3:28-29 "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." The long and promised day was when Elijah Abel was ordained an Elder on March 3, 1836. Here is his ordination certificate signed by Joseph Smith. https://goo.gl/images/ZRXBZH Even if Elijah's last name were 'Cain' not 'Abel' Joseph Smith would have endorsed his ordination personally. Why? Because Joseph believed Article of Faith 2. That men will be punished only for their own sins and not for [Cain's] sins. Edited June 9, 2018 by blueglass 1
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: You may take that view if you wish, but at the end of the day it is scarcely more than speculation, and we’ve seen what trouble speculation has caused in the past, with misguided theories having to be disavowed with respect to the reason for the ban. Until the Almighty sees fit to pour out further light and knowledge on the matter, I’ll take the position the Church does: No one knows the reason. That’s fine if that position works for you, Scott. But please realize that for some of us, the Almighty has already answered this through scripture. So we do know the reason.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 5 hours ago, blueglass said: d&cov131:5-6, (May 17th, 1843.) The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood. 6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance." ignorantia - Latin ‘not knowing’ 1john5:13"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life." Gal 3:28-29 "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." The long and promised day was when Elijah Abel was ordained an Elder on March 3, 1836. Here is his ordination certificate signed by Joseph Smith. https://goo.gl/images/ZRXBZH Even if Elijah's last name were 'Cain' not 'Abel' Joseph Smith would have endorsed his ordination personally. Why? Because Joseph believed Article of Faith 2. That men will be punished only for their own sins and not for [Cain's] sins. I’m unclear on the relevance of this response to what I posted. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, rockpond said: That’s fine if that position works for you, Scott. But please realize that for some of us, the Almighty has already answered this through scripture. So we do know the reason. Virtually all apostate splinter groups owe their existence to individuals who proclaim the superiority of their own understanding of scripture to the collective understanding of ordained apostles and prophets. Edited June 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Robert F. Smith Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 11 hours ago, rockpond said: There is a great post on Wheat and Tares that provides evidence showing that President Oaks statement about a prompt and public disavowal of the reasons for the ban was not correct. https://wheatandtares.org/2018/06/04/promptly-and-publicly-disavowed-or-not/ ............................................................... . So the fact that Oaks and I (two very different personalities) both considered there to have been an immediate public disavowal counts for nothing? I realize that opinions can differ, but is it really fair to completely disregard other opinions? 1
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: So the fact that Oaks and I (two very different personalities) both considered there to have been an immediate public disavowal counts for nothing? I realize that opinions can differ, but is it really fair to completely disregard other opinions? Fair enough... your impression and that of Pres. Oaks should not be disregarded. I guess what is more fair to say is that there is substantial evidence that the “prompt and public disavowal” was not widely known including, even, among church leaders who in 1998 seemed unaware of it.
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Virtually all apostate splinter groups owe their existence to individuals who proclaim the superiority of their own understanding of scripture to the collective understanding of ordained apostles and prophets. Fortunately I am not apostate, splinter, nor superior. In this case I also get to stand with President Oaks who likewise did not believe what was being taught about the ban. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: Fortunately I am not apostate, splinter, nor superior. In this case I also get to stand with President Oaks who likewise did not believe what was being taught about the ban. I was at BYU when Dallin Oaks was university president. I don’t recall his ever expressing in public an opinion contradicting the collective, established position of the Church and its leaders on this or any other matter. It’s possible, I suppose, that he could have done so while hiding under cover of a pseudonym, as you are doing here, but I highly doubt it. Edited June 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I was at BYU when Dallin Oaks was university president. I don’t recall his ever expressing in public an opinion contradicting the collective, established position of the Church and its leaders on this or any other matter. It’s possible, I suppose, that he could have done so while hiding under cover of a pseudonym, as you are doing here, but I highly doubt it. I didn’t speak publicly about it back then either. Now, both of us are.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I didn’t speak publicly about it back then either. Now, both of us are. What you are complaining about was never the collective, established institutional position of the Church. They were only ever theories. One could disbelieve them, as Elder Oaks did, and not be at odds with the Church. By contrast you here and now are contradicting the position of the Church, claiming to have superior understanding of the scriptures above that of ordained prophets and apostles.
CV75 Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 On 6/8/2018 at 1:07 PM, Tacenda said: I think Pres. Oaks and the first presidencie's hands are tied. He can't fully admit that a prophet is wrong and that the prophets after didn't know it was wrong and this was the most gentle way for him to say that the ban was from God. I think it simply wasn’t past leaders’ foreordination to pass a policy one way or the other, so we don’t really know. They were free to come to and enact their own conclusions, one way or the other. The Restoration rolled out within the time, place and culture the Lord chose and with however much or little direction the Lord gave them on any topic. I look to the brother of Jared as a template for this: the Lord hadn’t given him any doctrine about His physical nature because it wasn't for his "dispensation" (and wasn’t about to, which is why He told him not to tell anyone), so He was surprised when he saw His finger. But now we take the Lord’s physical attributes for granted, for they have since been revealed. We can’t condemn past leaders when for not seeing a “finger” that we have the advantage of seeing with the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants, but more importantly, we cannot know what the Lord didn’t share with them.
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What you are complaining about was never the collective, established institutional position of the Church. They were only ever theories. One could disbelieve them, as Elder Oaks did, and not be at odds with the Church. By contrast you here and now are contradicting the position of the Church, claiming to have superior understanding of the scriptures above that of ordained prophets and apostles. That’s not true. I have not claimed superior understanding of the scriptures over that of ordained prophets and apostles. Please show a reference or retract. Do the scriptures tell us that those of African descent should be banned from holding the priesthood and participating in temple ordinances? Edited June 9, 2018 by rockpond
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: That’s not true. I have not claimed superior understanding of the scriptures over that of ordained prophets and apostles. Please show a reference or retract. Do the scriptures tell us that those of African descent should be banned from holding the priesthood and participating in temple ordinances? The reference is your own posts pitting your understanding of scripture against that of ordained prophets and apostles who take the position that the reason for the ban has not been revealed and thus cannot be definitively known. 1
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The reference is your own posts pitting your understanding of scripture against that of ordained prophets and apostles who take the position that the reason for the ban has not been revealed and thus cannot be definitively known. Not exactly what I said. Can you answer my question before I elaborate further?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 11 minutes ago, rockpond said: Not exactly what I said. Can you answer my question before I elaborate further? Your question is a red herring. Revealed truth is not limited to what is contained in scripture
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your question is a red herring. Revealed truth is not limited to what is contained in scripture It’s not a red herring. But I agree revealed truth isn’t limited to scripture. I’m curious why you can’t answer that question. I’ll help you out — I don’t think you could find an apostle who would tell you that the scriptures indicate those of African descent should be barred from the priesthood and temple. Since I agree with that, it would seem that I am perfectly aligned with the apostles and our Prophet. You still owe me a retraction since I didn’t say what you claim I said.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: It’s not a red herring. But I agree revealed truth isn’t limited to scripture. I’m curious why you can’t answer that question. I’ll help you out — I don’t think you could find an apostle who would tell you that the scriptures indicate those of African descent should be barred from the priesthood and temple. Since I agree with that, it would seem that I am perfectly aligned with the apostles and our Prophet. You still owe me a retraction since I didn’t say what you claim I said. I didn’t say I couldn’t answer your question. I challenged its relevance (that’s what “red herring” means). And I don’t owe you a retraction. I observed that you are pitting your understanding of scripture against that of Church leaders in saying you can know from that understanding the reason for the ban when they say the reason is unknown. I stand by that, and I retract nothing.
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: I didn’t say I couldn’t answer your question. I challenged its relevance (that’s what “red herring” means). And I don’t owe you a retraction. I observed that you are pitting your understanding of scripture against that of Church leaders in saying you can know from that understanding the reason for the ban when they say the reason is unknown. I stand by that, and I retract nothing. Your observation is wrong. And you can’t seem to explain or back it up. So you owe me a retraction.
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 Can anyone tell me which apostles claim that the scriptures support a priesthood/temple ban for those of African descent? I’m curious who I am allegedly claiming superiority over.
Teancum Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Virtually all apostate splinter groups owe their existence to individuals who proclaim the superiority of their own understanding of scripture to the collective understanding of ordained apostles and prophets. Or perhaps some evil apostates conclude that no proclaimed one true religions speaks for God, if God is even there.
Recommended Posts