Activism toward the Church; talk by Ahmad S. Corbitt of YM General Presidency

[Bernard Gui]

34 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Yes, let's not forget what was previously taught about the timing.

Here's Brigham Young in 1852: "The Lord told Cain he should not receive the blessings of priesthood until the last of posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of earth. . . . This people that [are] commonly called Negros are children of Cain. I know they are. I know they cannot bear rule in priesthood, first sense of word, for the curse upon them was to continue on them, was to remain, until the residue of [the] posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings" (source).

And here's Joseph Fielding Smith in The Way to Perfection: "A curse was placed upon [Cain] and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures."

Yes, thank you. I know those quotes. I reckon they would be included in Elder McConkie’s admonition. 
 

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Their reaction is not surprising in that what was asked is if the blacks could hold the priesthood, and not if the ban was a mistake.   The answer to that question was, yes.  It is reported that the saints "wept for joy" and that there was a "collective weight lifted off of the shoulders" of the church.   It felt like a burden was removed.  Why?  Because the ban didn't feel right.  It created an unsettling stupor of thought for so many.  It was an unsettling and discomforting feeling that settled around the thought of the ban - and still does.  So, the reaction of having that lifted makes perfect sense! 

What is telling to me is that the church does not insist that it was not a mistake, but simply that they don't know why it happened.  They make no justification for the ban, not even by simply stating/acknowledging that it is justified by revelation.  They refuse to acknowledge that it was the revealed will of God, so I am confused as to why so many attempt to argue that it was. 

When all of the justifications for the ban made by the man who instigated it have been disavowed, that too is telling.  It leaves nothing but speculation and stupor of thought to support it. 

Not necessarily. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not necessarily. 

Not necessarily, what?

Edit: just noticed the bolder part.

I specified “for so many” in the first part, which is true.

In regards to the second part, can you please point me to anything other than speculation to justify the ban?  

When the prophets refuse to defend the ban as revelation, it would be stuporous for anyone else to attempt to do so.

Edited November 12, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

Not necessarily, what?

Edit: just noticed the bolder part.

I specified “for so many” in the first part, which is true.

In regards to the second part, can you please point me to anything other than speculation to justify the ban?  

When the prophets refuse to defend the ban as revelation, it would be stuporous for anyone else to attempt to do so.

I believe it became a pressing issue “for so many” in the late 60s to mid-70s when we started to sense a change was coming. We were being prepared for the change during the two previous decades. When the time was right, it happened. That it was a “stuporous issue for some” might be a better description of those decades. Of course this is a matter of opinion. This is mine.

The Church declared that there has been no record of revelation found, not that there was no revelation.

Quote

Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.

I don’t see that as a refusal to defend the ban as revelation. It’s simply a statement of current knowledge that could change in this life or in the next when we will see things more clearly. This leaves the question open. I have not closed my mind to the idea that the ban, however it was instituted, was part of God’s plan.

The Official Declaration also says, 

Quote

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan,…

This is what I believed since I first learned of the ban and the promises made that it would end. I have not experienced this stupor of thought you describe. I believe that God has his eyes firmly fixed on these end times. I do not believe he would allow the Restoration to be derailed by its first two prophets. It also helps me cope with so much injustice that has plagued so many billions of our brothers and sisters, every single day since Cain killed Abel. All this will be rectified and compensated for through the atonement of Jesus Christ. While I can’t fathom how that is done, I am assured that it will. This gives me great peace.

Today, calling a person a bigot, a racist, a hater, a sexist is about as damning as anything one can imagine. I’ve imagined myself speaking with Joseph, Brigham, and others and shouting, “You were bigoted, lying, misogynistic, racist, fraudulent perpetrators of the greatest injustice in Church history.” I  could not do this to their faces in the Spirit world, so why would I do do it here on earth when they cannot explain? I want to hear their side of the story. Lord knows their sacrifices, sufferings, and services for the Kingdom exceed mine like the oceans exceed a drop of rain. 

Conjecture, speculation, whatever. The pages of this board are and have always been filled with speculation. It’s what keeps it alive around here. You’ve engaged in some yourself, no? Why is it so egregious for one to come to personal conclusions about an issue resulting from study, thought, prayer, reflection, and experience? This has been the result of my experience. I will once again emphasize that I do not proclaim this as gospel nor do I ask that anyone else to agree.

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

“I don’t see that as a refusal to defend the ban as revelation. It’s simply a statement of current knowledge that could change in this life or in the next when we will see things more clearly.”

There is not one reference to the ban even being perceived as a revelation, let alone the possibility of it actually being a revelation in the article even though there is plenty of discussion of revelation itself (in regard to removing it).  There isn’t even a comment that one of the reasons a revelation was thought to be needed was because some understood the ban to be revealed.  Instead it states it is the “long history” requiring it….which implies tradition, not revelation. 
 

“given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done.”
 

Not defending the ban as revelation or even the belief that it was revelation even in little ways when they could (such as saying some leaders understood the ban to be revelation), obviously avoiding even mentioning the idea…if that is not refusing to defend the ban as revelation, it is hard to see what else it could be. 
 

Unless one was already aware that people thought the ban was revelation, that conclusion is not going to come after reading the Church’s explanation of it. Ban as revelation has to be inserted into the Church’s comments, it is not coming from the Church, even as a possibility. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

Also there is extensive effort on the webpage to establish not only does racism not belong in the Church, but also that originally it appears no black man was denied the priesthood, we know for sure of some who were ordained and even praised for their exercise of the Priesthood (quoting Brigham’s praise).  And there is plenty discussion of sources for the ban coming from ideas embedded in the greater culture.  

 

In the past I made the assumption that the Church was leaving the ban in the might be, might not be category, but the more I study how the ban is actually talked about on the Church’s website in the current material, the more it appears to me they are closing the door on it being potentially a revelation.  Before I was focused on finding something that wasn’t there (a statement about the belief of the ban as revelation) and was ignoring what was actually said and pushed out of the possibility box. Now focusing on what is said, all the boxes for the ban being cultural are ticked, none of the boxes for it being revelation have been.  Before I assumed a wall of explanation existed, but didn’t see it as I noticed bricks I expected to be there (a statement of the possibility of ban as revelation, statements by leaders suggesting or stating it was revelation or scripture based) that were missing.  Now I see simply a solid wall explaining cultural sources causing the rescinding of blacks’ rights to the temple and priesthood, sources that are rejected as unjustified in their claims.

The only thing they haven’t done to exclude the revelation possibility is come right out and say it.  Why they haven’t taken that step yet is the big question to me now, not whether or not the Church leadership are  okay with the ban being taught as possible revelation.   I can think of a couple of reasons. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

On 11/2/2022 at 6:23 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I just encountered this report of an insightful talk on a topic that deserves more attention, the perils of activism toward (or against) the Church of Jesus Christ. It was delivered by Brother Ahmad S. Corbitt of the Young Men general presidency to a group of Church-endorsed chaplains. 
 

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2022/11/1/23424931/brother-ahmad-s-corbit-activism-discipleship?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cn-social&utm_campaign=facebookpage-en&utm_content=churchnews-en&fbclid=IwAR1jT1UV8G3UnXgZxcy4rb04ozUa-Isaq3jPH_i5kkMrL3Bh_spi1tZ85iI

 

Activism has become so ingrained in our culture over the past two or three generations that some among us have failed to understand when it is inappropriate. 

Pretty ironic that the ban on the PH being lifted is partly because of the activism of these the 14 black football players.

https://www.black14.net/story#:~:text=The Black 14 is a,Brigham Young University (BYU).

And the Saviour definitely rebelled and was active in condemning the wrongs that religious leaders were teaching in His lifetime and was crucified for it. 

Also, Joseph Smith didn't like what he saw with the teachings of his time with the Bible churches and was active in changing things.

And this is heresay, but heard it was not the church's idea to have the "Be One" 40th anniversary celebration, it was the black LDS members, the activists. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/events/worldwide-priesthood-celebration?lang=eng

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

“I don’t see that as a refusal to defend the ban as revelation. It’s simply a statement of current knowledge that could change in this life or in the next when we will see things more clearly.”

There is not one reference to the ban even being perceived as a revelation, let alone the possibility of it actually being a revelation in the article even though there is plenty of discussion of revelation itself (in regard to removing it).  There isn’t even a comment that one of the reasons a revelation was thought to be needed was because some understood the ban to be revealed.  Instead it states it is the “long history” requiring it….which implies tradition, not revelation. 
 

“given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done.”
 

Not defending it even in little ways when they could (such as saying some leaders understood the ban to be revelation), obviously avoiding even mentioning the idea…if that is not refusing to defend the ban as revelation, it is hard to see what else it could be. 
 

Unless one was already aware that people thought the ban was revelation, that conclusion is not going to come after reading the Church’s explanation of it. Ban as revelation has to be inserted into the Church’s comments, it is not coming from the Church, even as a possibility. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

Also there is extensive effort on the webpage to establish not only does racism not belong in the Church, but also that originally it appears no black man was denied the priesthood, we know for sure of some who were ordained and even praised for their exercise of the Priesthood (quoting Brigham’s praise).  And there is plenty discussion of sources for the ban coming from ideas embedded in the greater culture.  

 

In the past I made the assumption that the Church was leaving the ban in the might be, might not be category, but the more I study how the ban is actually talked about on the Church’s website, the more it appears to me they are closing the door on it being potentially a revelation.  Before I was focused on finding something that wasn’t there (a statement about the belief of the ban as revelation) and was ignoring what was actually said and pushed out of the possibility box. Now focusing on what is said, all the boxes for the ban being cultural are ticked, none of the boxes for it being revelation have been.  Before I assumed a wall of explanation existed, but noticed bricks I expected were missing.  Now I see a solid wall explaining cultural sources causing the rescinding of blacks’ rights to the temple and priesthood, sources that are rejected as unjustified in their claims.

The only thing they haven’t done to exclude the revelation possibility is come right out and say it.  Why they haven’t taken that step yet is the big question to me now, not whether or not the Church leadership are  okay with the ban being taught as possible revelation.   I can think of a couple of reasons. 

Thanks for the comments.

So can I. You may have noticed that I have consistently said the the ban, however it was instituted, had a reason. I have not claimed nor do I know if it was a revelation. My mind and heart are open for more knowledge. Billions have never had access to the Priestood and its covenants. I would like to believe there is a reason for that in the great Plan. 

I wonder if the BY and JS statues will ever be taken down. That seems to be the fate of many from that era. Who knows where this will lead?

Edited November 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So can I. You may have noticed that I have consistently said the the ban, however it was instituted, had a reason.

And Leibniz strikes again. As Voltaire wrote in Candide:

Quote

"Not at all," replied the great man, "it was a thing unavoidable, a necessary ingredient in the best of worlds; for if Columbus had not caught in an island in America this disease, which contaminates the source of generation, and frequently impedes propagation itself, and is evidently opposed to the great end of nature, we should have had neither chocolate nor cochineal. It is also to be observed, that, even to the present time, in this continent of ours, this malady, like our religious controversies, is peculiar to ourselves. The Turks, the Indians, the Persians, the Chinese, the Siamese, and the Japanese are entirely unacquainted with it; but there is a sufficing reason for them to know it in a few centuries. In the meantime, it is making prodigious havoc among us, especially in those armies composed of well disciplined hirelings, who determine the fate of nations; for we may safely affirm, that, when an army of thirty thousand men engages another equal in size, there are about twenty thousand infected with syphilis on each side."

Syphilis was necessary, Voltaire argued (this is satire by the way, for those who are not familiar) because without syphilis, we would not have some of the finer things in life - like chocolate or cochineal.

Obviously, in such a model - where we can claim that everything must have a reason, we are all excused from the bad things we may engage in, because it is God's will, and not our own.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the comments.

So can I. You may have noticed that I have consistently said the the ban, however it was instituted, had a reason. I have not claimed nor do I know if it was a revelation. My mind and heart are open for more knowledge. Billions have never had access to the Priestood and its covenants. I would like to believe there is a reason for that in the great Plan. 

I wonder if the BY and JS statues will ever be taken down. That seems to be the fate of many from that era. Who knows where this will lead?

Of course it had a reason. It didn’t just appear due to certain molecules/energies randomly aligning in people’s brains in the middle of the night where suddenly everyone who was okay with blacks having the priesthood were all for kicking them out of the temple, etc.  We even have enough documentation to establish what that reason was, imo (primarily Brigham and others’ extreme reaction to mixed race children, but also satisfying Saints who came from the South with slaves).

Now if by “reason”, you mean a good reason that advanced the Kingdom of God and the progression of God’s children, that requires imo a leap of faith because the only evidence for that, imo, were all the explanations that have been officially disavowed by the Church.

Why would the statues be taken down?  You seem to think (or are at least trying to force a framing of belief by bringing up the irrelevant question of statues) one has to be either extreme in response to accepting a mistake was made (completely reject the value of Joseph and Brigham as prophets) or be open to the ban as a wise decision by Brigham, whether inspired or not.  Even in the political arena, not everyone who sees slaveholding as too important of an attribute to be dismissed because of greatness in other areas sees taking down the statues as the solution to ensuring we don’t enshrine the wrong examples of behaviour.  It has never been an all or nothing issue.

I am fully behind Joseph and Brigham as prophets, even if I believe Brigham made a massive mistake and used his status as prophet to impose what he was so certain was essential to the well being of the Saints without actual revelation, but rather interpretations of scripture created by the racist traditions of men.  I get it is a big leap of faith for those who were brought up or understand prophets to be almost infallible, erring perhaps, but only in meaningless ways that have no impact on our lives, but I have never seen the prophet’s role as untainted by folly, selfishness, or fear.  (We have examples of much less than perfect prophets all through the scriptures.)  At times in their lives prophets can rise above their fallen natures, at others they give into temptation…which for me is a sign of great hope for the rest of us because if God can send the Spirit to such flawed vessels, he will send the Spirit to me. And if God can choose such fallible humans for his leaders to whom he had given great promises of spiritual comfort, protection, and salvation and even exaltation, that means I can also be chosen by him for all those blessings and more.  

Edited November 14, 2022 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

Of course it had a reason. It didn’t just appear due to certain molecules/energies randomly aligning in people’s brains in the middle of the night where suddenly everyone who was okay with blacks having the priesthood were all for kicking them out of the temple, etc.  We even have enough documentation to establish what that reason was, imo (primarily Brigham and others’ extreme reaction to mixed race children, but also satisfying Saints who came from the South with slaves).

Now if by “reason”, you mean a good reason that advanced the Kingdom of God and the progression of God’s children, that requires imo a leap of faith because the only evidence for that, imo, were all the explanations that have been officially disavowed by the Church.

Why would the statues be taken down?  You seem to think (or are at least trying to force a framing of belief by bringing up the irrelevant question of statues) one has to be either extreme in response to accepting a mistake was made (completely reject the value of Joseph and Brigham as prophets) or be open to the ban as a wise decision by Brigham, whether inspired or not.  Even in the political arena, not everyone who sees slaveholding as too important of an attribute to be dismissed because of greatness in other areas sees taking down the statues as the solution to ensuring we don’t enshrine the wrong examples of behaviour.  It has never been an all or nothing issue.

I am fully behind Joseph and Brigham as prophets, even if I believe Brigham made a massive mistake and used his status as prophet to impose what he was so certain was essential to the well being of the Saints without actual revelation, but rather interpretations of scripture created by the racist traditions of men.  I get it is a big leap of faith for those who were brought up or understand prophets to be almost infallible, erring perhaps, but only in meaningless ways that have no impact on our lives, but I have never seen the prophet’s role as untainted by folly, selfishness, or fear.  (We have examples of much less than perfect prophets all through the scriptures.)  At times in their lives prophets can rise above their fallen natures, at others they give into temptation…which for me is a sign of great hope for the rest of us because if God can send the Spirit to such flawed vessels, he will send the Spirit to me. And if God can choose such fallible humans for his leaders to whom he had given great promises of spiritual comfort, protection, and salvation and even exaltation, that means I can also be chosen by him for all those blessings and more.  

Thank you for your comments. I have explained my thoughts about the reason. The Southern converts would not have been the only ones disturbed by mixed marriages,  integrated congregations, and Blacks in leadership positions. I’m not sure how European converts, especially northern, would have reacted. IMO, of course.

Regarding statues, it is just one protest action for those who wish to bring everything in the US down. I suppose the current animus against White oppression could dissipate like the chaos of the 60s and 70s, but IMO the serious trials for the Church are yet to come. What those trials may be remains to be seen. What do make of President Nelson’s repeated warnings?

The “massive mistakes” of BY and JS are among the ones that are getting so much attention. There are some who want to give them more wide exposure. I don’t know that the Church issuing a mea culpa would placate the angry ones. Who knows what the future holds? 

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And Leibniz strikes again. As Voltaire wrote in Candide:

Syphilis was necessary, Voltaire argued (this is satire by the way, for those who are not familiar) because without syphilis, we would not have some of the finer things in life - like chocolate or cochineal.

Obviously, in such a model - where we can claim that everything must have a reason, we are all excused from the bad things we may engage in, because it is God's will, and not our own.

Thank you for your comments. I don’t recall claiming that everything must have a reason, but perhaps I did.

Talking about the finer things of life, why do you think syphilis and other diseases were created? Did they just evolve? I would like to ask God why mosquitoes and fleas were created. They seem to serve no purpose other than to kill…a lot more folks than Treponema ever did. 

My mom used to say, “When I get to talk with Heavenly Father, I’m going to ask him why he let my daughter die and leave four children under the age of 17 without a mother?” Any reason? Not in the plan?

What do you think the appropriate reaction should be to Joseph and Brigham? How would you answer the question, “Why did God allow the prophets to make such  grievous mistakes and then let the error persist for so many years without correction?” 

I love Bernstein’s Overture to Candide, but it is a real bugger for the violins to play. One of my dad’s sister‘s name was Kunejunda. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for your comments. I have explained my thoughts about the reason. The Southern converts would not have been the only ones disturbed by mixed marriages,  integrated congregations, and Blacks in leadership positions. I’m not sure how European converts, especially northern, would have reacted. IMO, of course.

Regarding statues, it is just one protest action for those who wish to bring everything in the US down. I suppose the current animus against White oppression could dissipate like the chaos of the 60s and 70s, but IMO the serious trials for the Church are yet to come. What those trials may be remains to be seen. What do make of President Nelson’s repeated warnings?

The “massive mistakes” of BY and JS are among the ones that are getting so much attention. There are some who want to give them more wide exposure. I don’t know that the Church issuing a mea culpa would placate the angry ones. Who knows what the future holds? 

 

 

The satisfaction of the Southerns I was referring to was being able to keep their valuable “property”.  Hard to justify keeping a race enslaved as an inferior race incapable of taking care of themselves if you are being taught they are capable of exercising the priesthood and being your bishop or even prophet.  Every reason justifying the ban can be used for justifying slavery.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

is just one protest action for those who wish to bring everything in the US down.

Perhaps…but there are plenty who want the ones that honor those who fought for slavery removed to museums with appropriate historical context added when people see them to make the US stronger…

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

They seem to serve no purpose other than to kill

Anyone who claims that aren’t paying attention as they provide food for many species…

If you want to defend the ban as something good, maybe even inherently of value (why choose mosquitoes and fleas as comparison given they are inherently of value for other highly useful to mankind species?), that is not something I feel a need to discuss.  I am analyzing the Church’s approach, not yours.

Quote

 I don’t know that the Church issuing a mea culpa would placate the angry ones.

Not interested in discussing more extreme reactions to the Church’s actions.  Just an FYI I won’t be responding to that.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What do you think the appropriate reaction should be to Joseph and Brigham? How would you answer the question, “Why did God allow the prophets to make such  grievous mistakes and then let the error persist for so many years without correction?” 

Do you believe that those throwing Joseph in Liberty Jail were right to do so or to be given a pass because the result was the beautiful Sec 122?
 

Or that the persecution the Saints suffered will be ignored by God and the persecutors will escape justice whether they repent or not because God instructed that even in their sufferings the Saints (and us) should give thanks for all things?

Quote

Therefore, he giveth this promise unto you, with an immutable covenant that they shall be fulfilled; and all things wherewith you have been ^aafflicted shall work together for your ^bgood, and to my name’s glory, saith the Lord.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98?lang=eng

I think those who err should be forgiven, but we should never pretend that errors and sins do not exist out of respect or love because the harm just continues if we do that and we contribute to allowing that harm if we could have acted differently, whether the sins are against the Saints or perpetuated by them, whether the sins are against us as individuals or committed by us.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anyone who claims that aren’t paying attention as they provide food for many species…

If you want to defend the ban as something good, maybe even inherently of value (why choose mosquitoes and fleas as comparison given they are inherently of value for other highly useful to mankind species?), that is not something I feel a need to discuss.  I am analyzing the Church’s approach, not yours.

Not interested in discussing more extreme reactions to the Church’s actions.  Just an FYI I won’t be responding.

Lots of inattentive folks died, then. Other nice beasties could dine on teeny-tinies that are not so lethal to humans. 

Yet here you are analyzing my approach. 

Good things come from really bad things all the time.

Thanks for the FYI.

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe that those throwing Joseph in Liberty Jail were right to do so or to be given a pass because the result was the beautiful Sec 122?
 

Or that the persecution the Saints suffered will be ignored by God and the persecutors will escape justice whether they repent or not because God instructed that even in their sufferings they should give thanks for all things?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98?lang=eng

I think those who err should be forgiven, but we should never pretend that errors and sins do not exist out of respect or love because the harm just continues if we do that and we contribute to allowing that harm if we could have acted differently, whether the sins are against the Saints or perpetuated by them, whether the sins are against us as individuals or committed by us.

Something beautiful indeed came from the Brethren’s suffering. Same for the pioneer exodus west. Same for the destruction that preceded the coming of Jesus to the Nephites. Something about beauty for ashes? As Joseph said concerning slavery,

“Having spoken frankly and freely, I leave all in the hands of God, who will direct all things for his glory and the accomplishment of his work.”

Edited November 14, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps…but there are plenty who want the ones that honor those who fought for slavery removed to museums with appropriate historical context added when people see them to make the US stronger…

Is that what you think will happen to statues of our leaders?

There are plenty who want to take them down and throw them into the river.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Something beautiful indeed came from the Brethren’s suffering. Same for the pioneer exodus west. Same for the destruction that preceded the coming of Jesus to the Nephites. Something about beauty for ashes? As Joseph said concerning slavery,

“Having spoken frankly and freely, I leave all in the hands of God, who will direct all things for his glory and the accomplishment of his work.”

Because the ultimate result was beauty, are we wrong in your view to label the cause of the suffering as evil?  

Edited November 14, 2022 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

The satisfaction of the Southerns I was referring to was being able to keep their valuable “property”.  Hard to justify keeping a race enslaved as an inferior race incapable of taking care of themselves if you are being taught they are capable of exercising the priesthood and being your bishop or even prophet.  Every reason justifying the ban can be used for justifying slavery.

That’s not what Joseph wrote in his letter.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yet here you are analyzing my approach. 

Where am I analyzing your approach rather than answering questions or talking about the Church’s approach?  Analysis is a habit for me, I may do it out of habit when not my intent, so it would be helpful for you to point out where I did it.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That’s not what Joseph wrote in his letter.

Yeah, that would be difficult for Joseph to write about since the Utah southerners weren’t in Utah pushing for the right to keep their slaves yet…

Added:  wait…are you saying Joseph referred to the ban in his letter?  If not, what does his letter have to do with the ban?

Edited November 14, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Good things come from really bad things all the time.

Do you believe God causes/creates bad things to happen/exist so that good can occur or does he allow the bad to happen and then takes the results and with the Atonement heals the damage?

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have consistently said the the ban, however it was instituted, had a reason.

Despite the dog-pile in this thread, you are certainly not alone.

When I was working in America, I said something in our Institute class one evening, and the instructor asked me to stay after class to discuss further. He took me to his office and let me read an email from a friend of his who was then serving as a stake president in Price, UT. Boyd K. Packer had been the visiting authority at his stake conference the previous weekend, and according to this stake president (hearsay, I know!), Pres Packer had told him that, after all of his visits to Africa, he was finally beginning to understand why the Lord had allowed previous priesthood restrictions to be instituted. The stake president then wrote to his friend that Pres Packer had said that the explanation could be found in Jacob 5.

At the same time, I find it interesting that Americans insist on seeing this matter through an exclusively American lens. What if it actually had little or nothing to do with America?

[Calm]

“ Pres Packer had told him that, after all of his visits to Africa, he was finally beginning to understand why the Lord had allowed previous priesthood restrictions to be instituted. The stake president then wrote to his friend that Pres Packer had said that the explanation could be found in Jacob 5.”

I have no reason to doubt the above is true, but as stated it appears that this is something Pres Packer reasoned out and not something revealed to him.  Doesn’t mean it isn’t a true reason that might be revealed in the future either, but it falls into the realm of speculation it seems to me at this point and therefore may be not more accurate than the original speculative reasons that have been disavowed by the Church.

While the Ban was world wide and had some impact worldwide, it had a major impact from the beginning on Saints in America and still affects many Saints as well as many of those they interact with, the characters of wards and even the state of Utah in general (Utah is the 8th least diverse state even though save for Idaho for obvious reasons, it is surrounded by more diverse states), as well as proselytizing in America. Saying it has little or nothing to do with America doesn’t make sense when it has a massive impact on the American experiences of Saints.

If what you actually mean is the ban was needed not because of the impact it would have in America, but because of its impact elsewhere…that is a possibility that could be discussed of course. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Calm