youth sunday school and gospel topics essays

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The obvious difference is that the official teaching of the Church is that homosexual behavior is a serious transgression and that this teaching will never change. Believing the contrary places you and others squarely out of harmony with the position of the Church on this matter. 

By contrast, in 1978, disbelieving the theories that had been suggested as to the reason for the priesthood and temple restrictions would not have placed me or President Oaks or anyone else out of harmony with the position of the Church. Why? Because the Church had not provided an official statement about the reason for the ban. 

What exactly makes an "official statement"?  Are the repeated teachings of our prophets and apostles, backed by scripture, not considered official statements?

And again, "official statement" is not part of my position on this.  I contend that reasons for the ban were part of prophetic and apostolic teachings.  They were not given as theories which is what you are claiming.

Edited April 30, 2019 by rockpond

[rockpond]

The famous statement from Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more." (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/)

 

I'm curious... why would we need to "forget everything" that prophets and apostles said prior to 1978 if they never gave any reasons for the ban? What could we possibly need to forget?

[ALarson]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The obvious difference is that the official teaching of the Church is that homosexual behavior is a serious transgression and that this teaching will never change. Believing the contrary places you and others squarely out of harmony with the position of the Church on this matter. 

By contrast, in 1978, disbelieving the theories that had been suggested as to the reason for the priesthood and temple restrictions would not have placed me or President Oaks or anyone else out of harmony with the position of the Church. Why? Because the Church had not provided an official statement about the reason for the ban. 

I'm not sure why you're claiming this, Scott.  Leaders called it "doctrine":

Quote

“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father’s 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 receive all the blessings we are entitled to’” (Official statement of the First Presidency to BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, dated August 17, 1951

Quote

“This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. At a meeting of the general authorities of the Church, held August 22, 1895, the question of the status of the negro in relation to the Priesthood was asked and the minutes of that meeting say: ‘President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s offspring” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 110. 

Quote

“The former decree of God concerning the Negro has been reaffirmed in modern times. According to George Q. Cannon, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the following doctrine: ‘That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s off-spring.’ Other reports confirm the fact that Joseph Smith taught that the Negro cannot yet receive the priesthood” (Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, 1967, p. 402).

Quote

“The principles that the Prophet Joseph taught are the doctrines that we must abide in, or we shall be overthrown. …It was manifest to him that the seed of Cain would not come in remembrance before the Lord for their final redemption, until the seed of Abel the righteous should all have their opportunity” (Franklin D. Richards, October 5, 1896, Collected Discourses5:220.

 

And taught as "truth" by President Harold B. Lee:

Quote

“There is no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel than that our condition in the next world will depend upon the kind of lives we live here. ‘All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.’ (John 5:28-29.) Is it not just as reasonable to suppose that the conditions in which we now live have been determined by the kind of lives we lived in the pre-existent world of spirits? That the apostles understood this principle is indicated by their question to the Master when the man who was blind from his birth was healed of his blindness, ‘Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’ (John 9:2.) Now perhaps you will have a partial answer to some of your questions as to why, if God is a just Father, that some of his children are born of an enlightened race and in a time when the Gospel is upon the earth, while others are born of a heathen parentage in a benighted, backward country; and still others are born to parents who have the mark of a black skin with which the seed of Cain were cursed and whose descendants were to be denied the rights of the priesthood of God” (Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 164-165).

 

I have more quotes I could post, but hopefully you see how wrong you are about this.

Edited April 30, 2019 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/30/2019 at 10:56 AM, ALarson said:

I'm not sure why you're claiming this, Scott.  Leaders called it "doctrine":

I have more quotes I could post, but hopefully you see how wrong you are about this.

No, I’m not wrong. I have acknowledged that there were personal opinions regarding the reason for the priesthood and temple restrictions, but a personal opinion, no matter how highly placed the person is who is offering it, does not all by itself amount to an official, binding Church doctrine or position. And no amount of fuming or piling on by you and your buddies — and no amount of non-official quotations — changes that fact. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I’m not wrong. I have acknowledged that there were personal opinions regarding the reason for the priesthood and temple restrictions, but a personal opinion, no how highly placed the person is who is offering it, does not all by itself amount to an official, binding Church doctrine of position. 

 

A "personal opinion"?  It was called "doctrine" by one Prophet after the next and many other church leaders.  One Prophet stated that there was "no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel" (the reasons for the ban)

But if you call those just "personal opinions", then remember to do the same regarding any statements about gays or SSM.  

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And no amount of fuming or piling on by you and your buddies — and no amount of non-official quotations — changes that fact.

That's hilarious, since you are the one attempting to change facts here.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I’m not wrong. I have acknowledged that there were personal opinions regarding the reason for the priesthood and temple restrictions, but a personal opinion, no how highly placed the person is who is offering it, does not all by itself amount to an official, binding Church doctrine of position. And no amount of fuming or piling on by you and your buddies — and no amount of non-official quotations — changes that fact. 

I guess my questions must be too challenging to your claimed "fact" since you keep avoiding them.  Well done.

But, as I said, future members/leaders will put these techniques of yours to good use when they are working to unravel all that was taught about homosexuality in the church.

Forget everything... new light and knowledge has come into the world!

Edited April 30, 2019 by rockpond

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

A "personal opinion"?  It was called "doctrine" by one Prophet after the next and many other church leaders.  One Prophet stated that there was "no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel" (the reasons for the ban)

But if you call those just "personal opinions", then remember to do the same regarding any statements about gays or SSM.  

That's hilarious, since you are the one attempting to change facts here.

Seems like further disintegration of the prophetic role:  As I understand Scott, anything taught by prophets and apostles is just their opinion unless somehow (in some method that we are not privy to) the Correlation department signs off on it and deems it to be "official".

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I’m not wrong. I have acknowledged that there were personal opinions regarding the reason for the priesthood and temple restrictions, but a personal opinion, no how highly placed the person is who is offering it, does not all by itself amount to an official, binding Church doctrine of position. 

Did you not read all the quotes where the leaders called the ban and the reasons for it “doctrine”?  

Do you believe it was just their opinion that it was “doctrine” and that they were all wrong?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I’m not wrong. I have acknowledged that there were personal opinions regarding the reason for the priesthood and temple restrictions, but a personal opinion, no how highly placed the person is who is offering it, does not all by itself amount to an official, binding Church doctrine of position. And no amount of fuming or piling on by you and your buddies — and no amount of ex officious quotations — changes that fact. 

So every utterance is personal opinion? If that's your position, I agree.

But it doesn't appear that the prophets and apostles her were stating "doctrine" didn't think they were merely sharing their personal opinion. The Lowry Nelson letters are a good example of leaders affirming "theories" as doctrine. Some will argue that a letter to an individual doesn't provide doctrine to the church, and that's true, but it is evidence of the mindset of leaders who believed they were sharing doctrine. The private correspondence supports the churchwide teachings about blacks and the priesthood. So, unless your argument is that every teaching by prophets and apostles is opinion and theory, then you've really got no solid ground to stand on. If the prophets don't know what is and isn't doctrine versus their personal opinion, it seems impossible for us to make the distinction.

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange_djvu.txt

Quote

Dr. Lowry Nelson

Yoirr position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching
the preexistence of our spirits , the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that
our birth into this life and the advantages under which we my be born, have a
relationship in the life heretofore *

From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine
of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes
are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the
intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been
most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now*
God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People,, has been endogenous . Modern Israel
has been similarly directed •

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particu-
larly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the
breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites
and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to

Church doctrine •

Faithfully yours,

(signed) Geo, Albert- Smith

J* Reuben Clark, Jr.
David 0, McKay



The First Presidency
 

 

Part of Lowry Nelson's response...

Quote

Church relative to the Negro , I remember that it was discussed from time to
time during my boyhood and youth., in Priesthood meetings or elsewhere in Church
classes^ and always someone would say something about the Negroes n sitting on
the fence" during the Council in Heaven,, They did not take a stand, it was
said a Somehow there was never any very strong conviction manifest regarding
the doctrine, perhaps because the question was rather, an academic one to us in
Ferron, where there were very few people who had ever seen a Negro, let alone
having lived in the same community with them. So the doctrine was always passed
over rather lightly I should say, with no Scripture ever being quoted or referred
to regarding the matter, except perhaps to refer to the curse of Cain, or of Ham
and Canaan, (I went back and re-read the latter the other evening* It was diffi-
cult to find any element of justice in Noah T s behavior toward Ham, since the lat-
ter merely reported to his brothers that his father was lying there in a drunken
state and in a nude condition, and the other boys put a cover over him* Because
Ham reported his father's condition, he was cursed

First Presidency response...

Quote

November 12, 1947

Dr. Lowry Nelson
University of Minnesota
Department of Agriculture
University Farm
Stc Paul 1, Minnesota

Dear Brother Nelson:

We have your letter of October 8 in further development of the matter
discussed in your earlier letter.

We feel very sure that you understand well the doctrines of the Church
They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under
these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by
the reasonings of men however well-founded they may seem to be. We should like
to say this to you in all kindness and in all sincerity that you are too fine a
man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly-
learning, lou have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore
prayerfully hope that you can reorient your thinking and bring it in line with
the revealed word of God.



Faithfully yours,

THE FIRST PRESIDENCY (signed) G. Albert Smith

Letter from the Secretary to the First Presidency in response to Lowry Nelson's notice of intent to write an article about the issue.

Quote

Hay 23, 1952



Htm Lowry Nelson

1075 - lUth Avenue ByS,

Minneapolis lit, Minn.

Dear Brother Kelson:

Your letter "without date, addressed to President
McKay, was duly received, with which you transmitted
an article which you say you intend to publish.

President McKay wishes me to say that obviously
you are entirely within your rights to publish any
article you wish.

I should like to add on ray own account, however,
that when a member of the Church sets himself up
against doctrines preached by the Prophet Joseph Smith
and by those who have succeeded him in the high office
which he held, he is moving into a very dangerous posi-
tion for himself personally.

Sincerely yours,



Joseph Anderson /signed/



Secretary to the First Presidency

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That there had been unofficial theories circulating — theories that have now been disavowed — is a given that no one here has disputed. The point is that the Church has never given an official reason for the ban. 

The thing about personal  anecdotes is that they can be impossible to document. I don’t know when you served your mission or what General Authorities talked to you or what precisely they said or how accurately you are remembering it. I can only counter with my personal recollection. 

President Oaks attests in the quote I provided that he “decided a long time ago that [he] had faith in the command but had no faith in the reasons suggested for it.” That describes precisely my attitude in 1978, the year the revelation was received. I have a clear recollection of those days. I was a returned missionary enrolled at BYU. It was not a particularly unique attitude. It was common among Church members I knew of who had any opinion at all on the matter. 

President Oaks was BYU President at the time and, we now know, was on a trajectory that would eventually bring him to membership in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and ultimately to a position as first counselor in the First Presidency and as president of the quorum, one heartbeat away from becoming president of the Church. It makes no sense that he would be harboring an attitude that was out of harmony with the official position of the Church. 

So I’m issuing a counter challenge to you: Cite “just one” official statement from the Church that would have bound President Oaks or me or any other Latter-day Saint in the 1970s to a belief that black Church members were, in your words, “not yet worthy to hold the priesthood.” If you and rockpond are insisting that was the official teaching or doctrine of the Church, then I submit it is you, not I, who are engaging in “revisionist history.” 

There was a time when we trusted what an apostle told us was church teachings, and not automatically assume he had gone off the rails.  Elder Mark E. Peterson was an apostle at the time he made his statement that has been documented and quoted talking to the very educators of that same university.  

Yet. you stand by a statement by Elder Oaks. on not what he taught others, but what he personally believed at a time he was just a university president and not yet an ordained apostle.  

Pretty weak.

[rockpond]

I like this statement from a 2018 article on By Common Consent:

"An analogical example would be a parent who explicitly explains that they have taken their child’s smartphone away because they were playing too many video games, and reiterates that explanation for decades, refusing to release the phone. It would be odd for someone to later claim that “we don’t know why the smartphone was taken.” We know exactly why the phone was taken. But in the case of the restriction, it was no fault of black members."

 

Brigham Young instituted the ban and he told us why he instituted the ban.  We can't claim it was a theory or that we don't know why the ban was in place.  The prophet who started it told us precisely why.

[california boy]

At this point, and knowing Scott Lloyd's way of viewing things, the one thing that gives me comfort is that if the church every allows for gay temple marriage,  it will be Scott Lloyd who will be claiming that the church never had any official doctrine against such a change.  

Edited April 30, 2019 by california boy

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

At this point, and knowing Scott Lloyd's way of viewing things, the one thing that gives me comfort is that if the church every allows for gay temple marriage,  it will be Scott Lloyd who will be claiming that the church never had any official doctrine against such a change.  

And, based on the guideline's he has laid out here, Church members aren't bound to believe that God disapproves of gay marriage now.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And, based on the guideline's he has laid out here, Church members aren't bound to believe that God disapproves of gay marriage now.

And if there are any statements on record from our leaders opposing it, those are merely their own opinions.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Seems like further disintegration of the prophetic role:  As I understand Scott, anything taught by prophets and apostles is just their opinion unless somehow (in some method that we are not privy to) the Correlation department signs off on it and deems it to be "official".

So there were no "official" teachings or doctrines prior to 1972?  (According to Scott)

Quote

The present Priesthood Correlation Department was created by the direction of the First Presidency in 1972 and originally named the Internal Communications Department.

Is that your belief Scott? Just trying to figure out your opinion here....

Edited April 30, 2019 by ALarson

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

Where would he have found current approaches to the priesthood and temple ban?  Prior to the gospel topics essay, what was there for him to have used to counter all of the old statements? 

To my knowledge, all we have is the one comment from BRM to ignore everything but I don't think one apostle's statement gets to unilaterally erase decades of prophetic teachings.

I stand by that it is unfair to place any blame on Bott for repeating what had been taught by our prophets.  We can't do that to people.  I believe that the blacks and the priesthood essay came out in 2013 (if memory serves).  Prior to that I am not aware of any official disavowal.  And even the one we have is fairly weak.

BRM was only referring to the timing of the ban. His book Mormon Doctrine still taught much of the racist “folk lore” after his famous statement. 

While his book was updated after the priesthood revelation, it still contained statements like this (under Caste systems): "Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry." 

Edited April 30, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Now some are trying to say that never happened from any official sourse and were just rumors spread by rogue members.  

Just to be clear, I specified that nothing like Bott stated had come from official sources for many decades (I am guessing possibly five decades or more), I am not claiming there were never comments across the pulpit from higher ups or such published.  (I consider the 1949 FP statement specifying that BY's quote explaining the "curse" as a rejection of Priesthood and law of God as official...and wrong.)

There are former teachings that are not publicly repudiated, but are instructed to be no longer taught (in terms of producing manuals, for example) in my understanding.  I would personally prefer repeated specification of rejection of more popular teachings, but I can see where that might lead to "well, my theory isn't in that list" or other justifications.  I am not in the position to know what method is best.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

There was a time when we trusted what an apostle told us was church teachings, and not automatically assume he had gone off the rails.

I think there is more reason to trust apostles not going off the rails now than in the past as there appears to be a greater oversight by the group over the individual now as well as greater caution/wisdom in making claims.

Quote

Yet. you stand by a statement by Elder Oaks. on not what he taught others, but what he personally believed at a time he was just a university president and not yet an ordained apostle.  

Saying something is not contrary to official doctrine is not the same as saying it is official doctrine.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to be clear, I specified that nothing like Bott stated had come from official sources for many decades (I am guessing possibly five decades or more), I am not claiming there were never comments across the pulpit from higher ups or such published.  (I consider the 1949 FP statement specifying that BY's quote explaining the "curse" as a rejection of Priesthood and law of God as official...and wrong.)

Mormon doctrine (sold at Deseret Book until 2010) contained much of what Professor Bott got in trouble for. While one could argue it isn’t official, it certainly was prominent in many homes, printed by the church and written by an apostle. 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Mormon doctrine (sold at Deseret Book until 2010) contained much of what Professor Bott got in trouble for. While one could argue it isn’t official, it certainly was prominent in many homes, printed by the church and written by an apostle. 

I don't disagree.  That is another "what were you thinking?" question I have for the next life, both for Pres. McConkie and the leaders who were unhappy with it to begin with, but did not stop its publication which allowed it to become enthroned as the go to doctrinal source for so many.  There has been perpetuation of ideas on levels not official that I just don't understand why they were allowed to stand without a specific repudiation.  The too often repeated unwritten rule of things where leaders may even be teaching things contrary to published direction...

My issue with Bott is I would expect a professor to be more aware of current approaches rather than enshrining older ones, even if just for survival in academic life.  Professors of religion were getting reprimanded back when I was a student in the 70's for not keeping close enough to the standard curriculum.  

Just read the wiki article on Bott and saw this "Bott's tests, which he calls "celebrations", are open-note, open-book".  That drops him into 'that kind of teacher' for me (class is a performance more than learning experience, tends to be very, very popular).  Shouldn't react that way based on one word probably.

I think if Bott hadn't gone beyond the Egyptus claim, he might not have lost his job.  It is this stuff that follows which  shows him to be tone deaf, imo:

Quote

“ ‘God has always been discriminatory’ when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood,” says Bott, the BYU theologian. He quotes Mormon scripture that states that the Lord gives to people ‘all that he seeth fit.’ Bott compares blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.

“ ‘What is discrimination?’ Bott asks. ‘I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?’ Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. ‘You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.’ ”

https://universe.byu.edu/2012/02/29/professor-didnt-follow-university-media-policy-when-speaking-with-washington-post/

Edited April 30, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there is more reason to trust apostles not going off the rails now than in the past as there appears to be a greater oversight by the group over the individual now as well as greater caution/wisdom in making claims.

Saying something is not contrary to official doctrine is not the same as saying it is official doctrine.

If Elder Peterson was the only apostle that taught this view on blacks, you might have a point.  But as you can clearly see from Happy Jack's post, Elder Peterson was not alone in teaching this doctrine.  And I am not alone in hearing that doctrine taught by Church Leaders.  

I still stand by my comparison concerning the difference of teaching church doctrine by an apostle to religion teachers at BYU carrying a bit more weight than a university president speculating to himself about whether this was doctrine.  Speculation that did not come out in public until after the ban was lifted.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Just to be clear, I specified that nothing like Bott stated had come from official sources for many decades (I am guessing possibly five decades or more), I am not claiming there were never comments across the pulpit from higher ups or such published.  (I consider the 1949 FP statement specifying that BY's quote explaining the "curse" as a rejection of Priesthood and law of God as official...and wrong.)

There are former teachings that are not publicly repudiated, but are instructed to be no longer taught (in terms of producing manuals, for example) in my understanding.  I would personally prefer repeated specification of rejection of more popular teachings, but I can see where that might lead to "well, my theory isn't in that list" or other justifications.  I am not in the position to know what method is best.

And just to be clear, I am not defending what Bott said.  I am however objecting to Scott Lloyds rewriting of what church leaders were teaching as doctrine prior to the ban being lifted.  It wasn't just unofficial rumors or folklore.  Since the ban has been lifted, then I agree, the church stopped teaching the reasons for the ban as doctrine.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

If Elder Peterson was the only apostle that taught this view on blacks, you might have a point.  But as you can clearly see from Happy Jack's post, Elder Peterson was not alone in teaching this doctrine.  And I am not alone in hearing that doctrine taught by Church Leaders.  

Not seeing as how this repudiates my belief that the leadership group as a group is probably more active today in encouraging, possibly even pressuring individual members of that group not to go off on their own.

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not seeing as how this repudiates my belief that the leadership group as a group is probably more active today in encouraging, possibly even pressuring individual members of that group not to go off on their own.

I agree with your statement.  The Church correlation program definitely keeps much tighter controls on what everone, even the apostles speak about.  But. none of that changes the fact that multiple Church leaders spoke about these issues as doctrine, not their own thoughts. While those teachings may not be doctrine now, they certainly were taught as doctrine by those church leaders and over the pulpit prior to the ban.  We can't change history and pretend that they never referred to the curse of Cain as doctrine.  

[Joshua Valentine]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Not for many decades though.  For a BYU prof not to take into account current approaches to official doctrine and teachings is mind boggling to me.

 

23 hours ago, Calm said:

The whole more righteous is bunk, imo.  They can't know intent, they can't know if there are hidden sins, etc. especially if women are taught in a culture not to express less admirable thoughts.

 In essence it is saying gender predetermined how righteous someone is, not personal choice or agency...thus women are more or less forced to be righteous because of our natures, not because we might desire to be disciples of Christ.

 

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The teachings I think you are referring never carried the official Church imprimatur. They were always just theories. Had Correlation been in place as it is today, I think they would have been largely curtailed. Lack of correlation is indeed the problem.

 

Correlation ¨as it is today¨? Perhaps. But:

Starting in 1944,^[1] the Church Publications Committee approved the content and wording of the lesson materials from each of the auxiliaries making sure that everything that was published conformed to official church doctrine.^[2]

Between the 1920s and early 1960s, there was an increase in printed material available to LDS Church members, much of which contained opinions or quotes of church leaders that contradicted the evolving official positions and doctrines of the church. In addition, historical documents surfaced, were made available or printed from early members diaries which did not support the official church history. To counter this, the Correlation Committee, under the direction of the First Presidency, began to print materials and other curriculum to clarify and standardize what the church hierarchy considered to be official doctrine and history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_Correlation_Program

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On the contrary, the Church as an institution has never provided an official reason for the priesthood ban. 

From the FairMormon website:

When Elder Holland says that "it probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, ...

 

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That there had been unofficial theories circulating — theories that have now been disavowed — is a given that no one here has disputed. The point is that the Church has never given an official reason for the ban. 

The thing about personal  anecdotes is that they can be impossible to document. I don’t know when you served your mission or what General Authorities talked to you or what precisely they said or how accurately you are remembering it. I can only counter with my personal recollection. 

So I’m issuing a counter challenge to you: Cite “just one” official statement from the Church that would have bound President Oaks or me or any other Latter-day Saint in the 1970s to a belief that black Church members were, in your words, “not yet worthy to hold the priesthood.” If you and rockpond are insisting that was the official teaching or doctrine of the Church, then I submit it is you, not I, who are engaging in “revisionist history.” 

 

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By contrast, in 1978, disbelieving the theories that had been suggested as to the reason for the priesthood and temple restrictions would not have placed me or President Oaks or anyone else out of harmony with the position of the Church. Why? Because the Church had not provided an official statement about the reason for the ban. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Just to be clear, I specified that nothing like Bott stated had come from official sources for many decades (I am guessing possibly five decades or more), I am not claiming there were never comments across the pulpit from higher ups or such published.  (I consider the 1949 FP statement specifying that BY's quote explaining the "curse" as a rejection of Priesthood and law of God as official...and wrong.)

 

Quote

FairMormon:

The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_do_we_know_about_the_origin_of_the_priesthood_ban_on_Church_members_of_African_descent%3F

 

FairMormon (also):

From: Statement of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, August 17, 1949, Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.

¨August 17, 1949 

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin 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." 

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." 

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. 

The First Presidency ^[1]

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements#cite_note-1

Note - FairMormon just lists this quote among two others with no commentary. And the previous FairMormon quote about never official reason does not deal with this statement at all (based on quick term search and citations check).

 

Note: I think parts of this have already been quoted and Calm seemed to refer to it, but I thought it would be good to present the full statement. Also, that it was on FairMormon who said ¨never an official reason¨.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Joshua Valentine
added highlight and cleaned up unnecessary quote parts, and added citation per request (had left it off since I was quoting another´s comment here) [did you ask them for a citation, Calm...? ;)]