Recent Poll Re: Assessment of Priesthood Ban

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

If the Church is what it claims to be, then my comments seem pretty plausible.  I am not denying or ignoring or "sweep{ing} away problematic issues like the topic of this thread" (you will note that I started this thread).  I am, instead, trying to use reasoned analysis, evidence, logic, and so on to address and contextualize these issues.

Fair enough. And I am trying to do the same to explain my position and why I find this one of the more problematic items and fairly fatal the the truth claims of the church. At least as far as it being led by prophets that God directs.

The scriptures have all sorts of examples of "believers" materially screwing up after having experienced or accepted as true miraculous events and teachings.

The children of Israel were committing great wrongs while Moses was up in the mount.  Their misconduct does not negate the reality that Moses was communing with God.

Laman and Lemuel started grumbling right after an angel stopped them from continuing to beat up Nephi.  Their grumbling does not negate the reality of the angelic visitation.

The "truth claims of the church" center mostly on Joseph Smith's theophanies, ministrations, priesthood restoration, revelations, and the bringing forth of The Book of Mormon.  If the ban was not revelatory, that is truly a great error and tragedy, and its negative repercussions continue to this day.  But such errors do not retroactively negate what happened to, and what came through, Joseph Smith.

For me, if The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then it and the other "truth claims" come together to form a pretty sturdy basis for belief, even in the face of great controversies like the ban.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

My opinion on David O McKay and the priesthood ban, based on the book David O McKay and the Rise or Modern Mormonism, is that he actually wanted to lift the ban and one point.  And Hugh B Brown most certainly did.  But it seems to me they were undermined by powerful apostles, primarily Harold B Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith.

Well, we'll see.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Again, if a revelation was required to lift the ban then it seems to me the church leaders believed the ban was from God even though they could not seem to pin down exactly some document or revelation indicating as such.

I think Edward Kimball's essay addresses this issue fairly well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Alas, vestiges of past errors can persist amongst us.  All the more reason to continue to listen to prophets and apostles, and to privilege their counsel over multiple hearsay statements from 'some missionaries ... from Utah ... explaining [] how things really work."

Dunno.  I didn't listen to all of it.

I think there can be plenty of overlap between a thought I hold as a matter of opinion/belief and a thought I hold as a "conclusion."

Thanks,

-Smac

I was just surprised, given my impression of progressive Gen Z attitudes toward social issues (in this case, race and ethnicity).

Yes, a lot of overlap which is OK by me. For me, the process of holding a belief is not necessarily logical, can more often be counterintuitive, and more value-driven, and a conclusion more fact-driven. Of course, both are subjective human experiences, but I won't go there  !

[Teancum]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your reasoning seems to be that either the Brethren are inspired in everything they do and say, or else they "have no greater, and sometimes even less, insight on things that are correct and moral then the rest of us."

Respectfully, I reject this reasoning as a false dichotomy. 

No that is not my position. But for year they claimed that the ban was of God.  You say it wasn't. So you think prophets and apostles were wrong about their claims. I think on an issue of such importance that if they were wrong God would have corrected them.  The fact that they did not get the correction right for decades indicates that they really are not prophets or apostles. If you are ok with so called prophets getting this ( as well as many other things) so wrong, it seems you have  a pretty low bar for them. But I get it. Without that low bar you would likely reject their claims, like I do. 

[Teancum]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

and yet, we apparently have nothing in the archives of the Church regarding its revelatory provenance.

I am not sure your point or what you are trying to get at by this line of repetition.  Feel free to argue with almost all the past leaders of Mormonism. The men who claimed to be prophets and apostles. The ones that say they are prophets, seers and revelators. The ones that say "Follow the brethren."  If they led the church in error on this for a over a hundred years it seems to me that you have a problem with a leadership that was in apostasy or really are not prophets, seers and revelators.  They are the ones who said it. They are the ones claiming to be prophets, seers and revelators. My opinion is that this is problematic. I am sure you disagree. The LDS leaders can pretty much make whatever error large or small and you will find a way to spin it in their favor.  Your legal background seems well suited for that.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

and yet, we apparently have nothing in the archives of the Church regarding its revelatory provenance.

I am not sure your point or what you are trying to get at by this line of repetition. 

Two purposes for this "line of repetition":

1) to save time, and

2) to emphasize the "when all is said and done" / "at the end of the day" consideration.

As to this second item, and by way of analogy: There are all sorts of commonly-held assumptions, beliefs, etc. about how the American legal system works, and some of these are partly or wholly incorrect.  Some examples:

• Police aren't allowed to lie to you
• You have the right to a phone call immediately upon arrest.
• If you're not read your Miranda rights, your arrest is invalid.
• You can't be charged with a crime if the victim doesn't want to press charges.
• Verbal agreements aren't legally binding.

These sorts of misconceptions persist even today, when we have access to all sorts of information.  We sometimes don't fully understand just how often we are relying on assumptions, traditions, false notions, and so on.  These assumptions, false notions, traditions, etc., even when held by many people over long periods of time, do not "create" law.  Instead, we have established alternative mechanisms for establishing laws: legislatures, courts (particularly appellate courts), administrative agencies, etc.  And we have clear and obvious sources of information that can help us differentiate "the law" from subjective (and, sometimes, erroneous) assumptions about "the law."

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some of us have assumptions, beliefs, etc. about doctrines, teachings, etc.  Differentiating "doctrine" from assumptions and expectations and such is, I think, a bit more ambiguous than differentiating secular laws from assumptions/beliefs about those laws.  We have

(A) canonized scriptures, and also

(B) non-canonized, but still ex officio, counsel from prophets and apostles, and also

(C) formally-published policies and procedures (such as the Handbook).  

Pres. J. Reuben Clark said:

Quote

“Only the President of the Church … has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church. He is God’s sole mouthpiece on earth” (“When Are the Writings,” 12).

See also these remarks from then-Elder Harold B. Lee (same link) :

Quote

“How do we measure whether or not one’s teachings are true or false? If anyone teaches beyond what the scriptures teach, we may put it down as speculation except one man who has the right to bring forth any new doctrine—that is the one man who holds the keys—the prophet, seer, and revelator who presides in that high place. And no one else. If anyone presumes to bring forth what he claims to be new doctrine you may know that it is purely his own opinion and you label it as such regardless of his position in the Church. If it contradicts something that is in the scriptures, you may label it immediately that it is false. That is why we call the scriptures our four Standard Church Works. They are the standards by which we measure all doctrine and if anything is taught which is contrary to that which is in the scriptures, it is false. It is just that simple” (“Viewpoint of a Giant,” 6).

“All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth” (“Using the Scriptures in Our Church Assignments,” Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, 13).

Consider these remarks by Kent Jackson:

Quote

The more restrictive view of what constitutes scripture would include only what is called "the scriptures"-that is, the four standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These constitute the canonized, authoritative corpus of revealed writings against which all else is measured. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203).

And these by then-Elder Harold B. Lee of the Twelve:

Quote

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator — please note that one exception {when he is speaking as the prophet, taught from earlier in the paragraph} — you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea.” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard” — it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.

And these remarks by President Lee:

Quote

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.  The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.  And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard  Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69)

Moreover, the Church is operated and governed by councils and commandments, not an individual's fiat.  We sometimes make mistakes in that governance.  I think that is what happened with the ban.  In my view, the primary evidence for the ban being an error is . . . "we apparently have nothing in the archives of the Church regarding its revelatory provenance."

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Feel free to argue with almost all the past leaders of Mormonism.

How would I do that?  They're all dead.  Meanwhile, the living "leaders of Mormonism" have, for many decades now, providing excellent counsel condemning racism, including explicit repudiations in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The men who claimed to be prophets and apostles.  The ones that say they are prophets, seers and revelators.

Yes.  Good men who, nevertheless, are not perfect and can - and do - make mistakes.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The ones that say "Follow the brethren."  

I've spent my life "follow{ing} the brethren," and have benefitted enormously from doing so.

I have a friend with whom I recently had a very heart-felt discussion (my wife was also present).  He has been going through some real struggles.  He's younger than me, but he's known me and my family a long time.  He said he hopes someday to have a wife and children, and to give them the same sort of life he experienced growing up and which he now sees in my family.  My friend, like you, grew up in the Church, but has distanced himself from it and presently holds it in very low regard.

I respectfully submit that the Latter-day Saints who well and truly strive to live according to the teachings of the Church generally end up as decent, sometimes even very decent, people. I further submit that this generalized state of affairs exists and arises because these Latter-day Saints are attempting to do what you deride and hold in contempt.  If the Latter-day Saints are good, it is not despite of their "follow{ing} the Brethren," but because they are doing so.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

If they led the church in error on this for a over a hundred years it seems to me that you have a problem with a leadership that was in apostasy or really are not prophets, seers and revelators. 

If the Brethren start dissuading us from having faith in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as our Savior and Redeemer, and from repenting, and from serving others, and from loving our fellow man, and from obeying the Lord's commandments, and so on, then I will give some consideration to your suggestion that we may "have a problem with a leadership that was in apostasy or really are not prophets, seers and revelators."

As it is, however, the Brethren are doing all of these things.  A lot.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

They are the ones who said it. They are the ones claiming to be prophets, seers and revelators. My opinion is that this is problematic. I am sure you disagree. The LDS leaders can pretty much make whatever error large or small and you will find a way to spin it in their favor.  Your legal background seems well suited for that.

I don't "spin" errors "in their favor."  Rather, I seek to apply Mormon 9:31.  A lot.

The Brethren aren't perfect, but I don't need them to be.  Apostles are supposed to testify of Jesus Christ.  The Brethren, both dead and alive, have cumulatively done an excellent job at this, their primary purpose.  They have elsewhere made mistakes, including some substantial ones.  The priesthood ban is, I think, the gravest.  There have been many others, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 16, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

No that is not my position. But for year they claimed that the ban was of God.  You say it wasn't.

I said this because we apparently have nothing in the archives of the Church regarding its revelatory provenance.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So you think prophets and apostles were wrong about their claims.

I am open to correction based on further data.  But for now, yes, I think claims that the ban was revelatory were more likely borne of entrenched tradition and strained interpretation of a few scriptures than of any substantive appeal to the records of the Church for evidence of revelatory provenance.

That said, I think the prophets and apostles are right on the money in their testifying of Jesus Christ and the Restored Gospel.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think on an issue of such importance that if they were wrong God would have corrected them.

I think if God truly loved His covenant people He would not have left them in bondage for 400 years in Egypt.  And yet He did.  Since God is perfect and omniscient, and since I am not, I do not find within myself the competency to judge and condemn Him for not meeting acting in accordance with my expectations.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The fact that they did not get the correction right for decades indicates that they really are not prophets or apostles.

Or it could be that the ban entangled the Gospel with racialist sentiments originating in the 19th century, and that this hindered the Saints - perhaps even including some of in positions of leadership - in their ability and willingness to do what they ought to have done.  As Edward Kimball put it:

Quote

A study by Armand Mauss concluded that Mormons were prejudiced, but not more than other religious Americans. “Mormons . . . were no more likely to give anti-Negro responses than were the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans . . . or Baptists,” although their belief system could provide an easy rationalization for prejudice.

YMMV.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

If you are ok with so called prophets getting this ( as well as many other things) so wrong, it seems you have  a pretty low bar for them.

I think you are overstating things a bit.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

But I get it. Without that low bar you would likely reject their claims, like I do. 

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

On 5/16/2024 at 12:41 PM, Teancum said:

I have no idea.  Why would they need a revelation if they thought it was not from God and a mistake? It could have been a simple policy adjustment.  So can you not satisfy my CFR?

Not at the moment, later tonight hopefully.  

Edited June 5, 2024 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

If the Brethren start dissuading us from having faith in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as our Savior and Redeemer, and from repenting, and from serving others, and from loving our fellow man, and from obeying the Lord's commandments, and so on, then I will give some consideration to your suggestion that we may "have a problem with a leadership that was in apostasy or really are not prophets, seers and revelators."

None of the early Catholic leaders did these things, but isn’t the LDS position that they were in apostasy? So one can be in apostasy while still not doing the things in your list?

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I respectfully submit that the Latter-day Saints who well and truly strive to live according to the teachings of the Church generally end up as decent, sometimes even very decent, people.

Same with Catholicism and Buddhism and most other religions. Live according to their precepts and you’ll be a decent or very decent person. 

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

I have no idea.  Why would they need a revelation if they thought it was not from God and a mistake? It could have been a simple policy adjustment.  So can you not satisfy my CFR?

I believe one of the motivators could be outside pressure.  There was a lot of discrimination pushback in the 1960s and 1970s.  I don't know if this was an issue or not, but major schools were starting to shy away from playing sports with BYU.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yet the apostles and prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball all disagree with you. And with Reeve.

Are you saying this citation from Smac that some apostles at least decided the ban was not revelation is wrong?

Quote

In 1954, President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change.²⁵

Checking to see what type of references will meet your CFR.

Edited May 17, 2024 by Calm

[california boy]

Everything said about no revelation on the priesthood ban and fallible leaders who are products of prejudice of their time is also true about not allowing gay temple marriage.   They explain away the decisions made about banning blacks from holding the priesthood are the exact same situation of withholding temple ordinances from gay couples.  

I wonder if in fifty years or however long it takes the brethren to loose their prejudices concerning gay relationships, these same defenders will use these exact same arguments to excuse current policies.  
I certainly remember not too far in the past when the law of chastity was No sex outside of marriage.  

Now, because of current prejudice that law has been rewritten to exclude gay marriage and those relationships in order to deny gay couples from both membership and temple marriage blessings.

 So history repeats itself. Deny blessing based on prejudicial beliefs with no revelation guiding that decision.  

I too followed church leaders who promised in the name of God that if I just married a woman, I would eventually become straight. Following that promise has affected my entire life and my families as well.  That advice given to thousands of men resulted in thousands of broken families.  That has been reversed. 
 

Then these apostles and prophets decided to withhold baptisms of underaged children of gay couples.  President Nelson even called that decision a revelation, until it wasn’t. So all ready they have gotten policies against gay couples wrong twice.  Doesn’t sound like God is directing these decisions based on past prejudices this time either does it.

Edited May 17, 2024 by california boy

[CV75]

The question just occurred to me: could Brigham Young's imposition of the ban have been an inspired expediency, doctrinal misstatements notwithstanding?

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Everything said about no revelation on the priesthood ban and fallible leaders who are products of prejudice of their time is also true about not allowing gay temple marriage.   They explain away the decisions made about banning blacks from holding the priesthood are the exact same situation of withholding temple ordinances from gay couples.  
I wonder if in fifty years or however long it takes the brethren to loose their prejudices concerning gay relationships, these same defenders will use these exact same arguments to excuse current policies.  
I certainly remember not too far in the past when the law of chastity was No sex outside of marriage.  Now, because of current prejudice that law has been rewritten to exclude gay marriage and those relationships in order to deny gay couples from both membership and temple marriage blessings.
 So history repeats itself. Deny blessing based on prejudicial beliefs with no revelation guiding that decision.  

Despite such a conclusion, and whether it is correct or not, the keys of the kingdom still do what they are meant to do. The Lord will correct any incidental mistakes in how His servants manage them along the way, as well as those who, having benefited from the delegation and exercise of those keys, have an incorrect response to them.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Despite such a conclusion, and whether it is correct or not, the keys of the kingdom still do what they are meant to do. The Lord will correct any incidental mistakes in how His servants manage them along the way, as well as those who, having benefited from the delegation and exercise of those keys, have an incorrect response to them.

The Lord may very well correct these policies that have their roots in prejudices, but at what cost to those individuals and their families?  How many have left the Church as a result imog these policies lacking any revelation from God?   How many broken families have been affected by these policies today that lack revelation?   
 

Maybe you are able to brush this off the same way I erroneously brushed off the ban on temple ordinances for blacks because it didn’t affect me.  I taught that false doctrine to countless people while serving a mission, even quoting scripture to support that teaching, something I deeply regret to this day. I was a part of withholding those blessings because, once again I followed the apostles and prophets.  

[Analytics]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Everything said about no revelation on the priesthood ban and fallible leaders who are products of prejudice of their time is also true about not allowing gay temple marriage.   They explain away the decisions made about banning blacks from holding the priesthood are the exact same situation of withholding temple ordinances from gay couples.  

I wonder if in fifty years or however long it takes the brethren to loose their prejudices concerning gay relationships, these same defenders will use these exact same arguments to excuse current policies.  
I certainly remember not too far in the past when the law of chastity was No sex outside of marriage.  

Now, because of current prejudice that law has been rewritten to exclude gay marriage and those relationships in order to deny gay couples from both membership and temple marriage blessings.

Yep. The prophets and apostles excluded gospel blessings from people based on race. This was wrong. The vast majority of members and non-members figured this out before God decided to inform his prophets and apostles. By my calculations, it took God 134 years to remove institutional racism from the Church that He personally leads. This makes me wonder what else the prophets and apostles are wrong about:

1. Is it wrong to exclude gospel blessings from people because they love and want to be married to somebody of the same sex?
2. Is it wrong to exclude gospel blessings from people who decide that it’s more important to fund their own rainy day funds rather than the Church’s bloated accounts?

The answers to these questions are obvious. The question is whether it will take God more or less than 134 years to give the good news to His prophets and apostles.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Despite such a conclusion, and whether it is correct or not, the keys of the kingdom still do what they are meant to do.

With this level of indifference to false doctrine, how do you justify the belief that there was an apostasy to begin with? Shouldn’t you be Catholic?

Edited May 17, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

could Brigham Young's imposition of the ban have been an inspired expediency, doctrinal misstatements notwithstanding?

I'm not opposed to the idea that God would grant temporary "pragmatic" revelations that aren't in line with eternal truth. IMO, though, it doesn't really help the concerns that the issue raises. It still seems that we are sometimes completely blind to the nature of revelation.

I think this idea that the ban was this kind of "pragmatic" revelation would be much more compelling if we as a people had been able to recognize it as a temporary, pragmatic revelation. If we could find a series of statements from Brigham Young to David O McKay to the effect of "we're not sure why God is doing this (these are the reasons we think He is, but God's says He's doing this to keep us somewhat aligned with broader American society, and some day, when broader American society changes, He will give us different direction," then I would be more inclined to find this satisfying.

I think I've said before in this group that the perpetuation of the ban is as much or more of an issue in my mind than its implementation, and this is why. The perpetuation of the ban highlights so clearly (IMO) that we sometimes are completely unable to discern truth from error form the prophets and apostles on down. IMO, that's a very real problem for a church that claims (above and beyond any other claims made by other Christian groups) to be built on the rock of revelation with a foundation of prophets and apostles.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Everything said about no revelation on the priesthood ban and fallible leaders who are products of prejudice of their time is also true about not allowing gay temple marriage.   They explain away the decisions made about banning blacks from holding the priesthood are the exact same situation of withholding temple ordinances from gay couples.  

Not only for the issue of same-sex marriage, but the questions around gender roles, women and priesthood, and so many of the other "hot button" issues of the day. The church's stance on so many of these issues seem rooted in "tradition" (whether our own, or broader Christian traditions, or other tradition). Until we can fully address how false traditions and/or pragmatic, temporary revelations and/or whatever else we need to throw in here impacted the history of the ban, we have no real way of addressing the question of whether or not we are repeating the same mistakes of history rather than learning from history.

[the narrator]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

My opinion on David O McKay and the priesthood ban, based on the book David O McKay and the Rise or Modern Mormonism, is that he actually wanted to lift the ban and one point.  And Hugh B Brown most certainly did.  But it seems to me they were undermined by powerful apostles, primarily Harold B Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith.

 

So, then, which of these men were in apostasy under Oaks's recent definition?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The Lord may very well correct these policies that have their roots in prejudices, but at what cost to those individuals and their families?  How many have left the Church as a result imog these policies lacking any revelation from God?   How many broken families have been affected by these policies today that lack revelation?   
 

Maybe you are able to brush this off the same way I erroneously brushed off the ban on temple ordinances for blacks because it didn’t affect me.  I taught that false doctrine to countless people while serving a mission, even quoting scripture to support that teaching, something I deeply regret to this day. I was a part of withholding those blessings because, once again I followed the apostles and prophets.  

Don't misunderstand: I am not brushing anything off, including my own sins and mistakes and the principles of of forgiveness. But overarching even these is the reality that Jesus Christ will settle all our affairs, and that is what I am emphasizing at this particular juncture.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

The Lord may very well correct these policies that have their roots in prejudices, but at what cost to those individuals and their families?  How many have left the Church as a result imog these policies lacking any revelation from God?   How many broken families have been affected by these policies today that lack revelation?   
 

Maybe you are able to brush this off the same way I erroneously brushed off the ban on temple ordinances for blacks because it didn’t affect me.  I taught that false doctrine to countless people while serving a mission, even quoting scripture to support that teaching, something I deeply regret to this day. I was a part of withholding those blessings because, once again I followed the apostles and prophets.  

Don't misunderstand: I am not brushing anything off, including my own sins and mistakes and the principles of of forgiveness. But overarching even these is the reality that Jesus Christ will settle all our affairs, and that is what I am emphasizing at this particular juncture.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

With this level of indifference to false doctrine, how do you justify the belief that there was an apostasy to begin with? Shouldn’t you be Catholic?

Don't misunderstand: I am not brushing anything off, including my own sins and mistakes and the principles of of forgiveness. But overarching even these is the reality that Jesus Christ will settle all our affairs (just as He did the apostasy), and that is what I am emphasizing at this particular juncture.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not opposed to the idea that God would grant temporary "pragmatic" revelations that aren't in line with eternal truth. IMO, though, it doesn't really help the concerns that the issue raises. It still seems that we are sometimes completely blind to the nature of revelation.

I think this idea that the ban was this kind of "pragmatic" revelation would be much more compelling if we as a people had been able to recognize it as a temporary, pragmatic revelation. If we could find a series of statements from Brigham Young to David O McKay to the effect of "we're not sure why God is doing this (these are the reasons we think He is, but God's says He's doing this to keep us somewhat aligned with broader American society, and some day, when broader American society changes, He will give us different direction," then I would be more inclined to find this satisfying.

I think I've said before in this group that the perpetuation of the ban is as much or more of an issue in my mind than its implementation, and this is why. The perpetuation of the ban highlights so clearly (IMO) that we sometimes are completely unable to discern truth from error form the prophets and apostles on down. IMO, that's a very real problem for a church that claims (above and beyond any other claims made by other Christian groups) to be built on the rock of revelation with a foundation of prophets and apostles.

I just thought I would bring it up; I really have no more rationale for supporting that idea than I do the notion that the ban was so egregious that the Lord cannot repair any damage that was done, or help people repent and forgive the particulars involved as the case may be. I realize many people may not believe that. But I take no issue with the statements made in the OP, for that matter. I find the overall attitude that Jesus Christ will settle all our affairs (just as He did the apostasy) very helpful and productive in our moving forward from any sense of offense and injury.

Edited May 17, 2024 by CV75

[rpn]

On 5/16/2024 at 12:25 PM, smac97 said:

I count myself in the first cohort.

Brigham Young received info that the son of the most prominent black member/priesthood holder  of the church in the NE married a white woman days after his state made that legal within a short time of learning that black member McCrary had started his own congregtion outside of Winter Quarters, requiring white women to stay over night in order to be part of it AND had multiple takers.    IMHO it is entirely possible that BY simply didn't see any way that the church could survive in the 1840's both the fight about polygamy and racial equality.   And it is at least possible that Heavenly Father agreed (though whether the priesthood ban that BY chose ---practically the only way I can think of to discourage interracial togetherness effectively ---  was His idea or not) at that time. 

 

I think when the leaders were prompted in the 1880's and then again in the early 1900's to conduct investigations, continuing the ban was almost certainly racism.  Abraham Smoot (a slaver himself in Utah) and Zebedee Coltrin outright lied about Joseph's ordination of Elijah Abel (that they each had personal knowledge of)  (not to mentioned the leaders were prompted to conduct each of those investigations).  

 

Edited May 17, 2024 by rpn

[california boy]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Don't misunderstand: I am not brushing anything off, including my own sins and mistakes and the principles of of forgiveness. But overarching even these is the reality that Jesus Christ will settle all our affairs, and that is what I am emphasizing at this particular juncture.

That is actually the same conclusion I came to.  Why rely on men who claim to be apostles and prophets when is all they are doing is relying on their own prejudices to tell us what to do and not claiming any kind of revelation.   Far better to strengthen your own relationship with God and rely on that relationship to guide you.  In the end Christ will fix any errors either make.

So I am not allowed to be a member or do temple work while I have my partner.  He is much more important to my life then the personal opinion based on their prejudices or being a member of the Church