Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Justice is infinitely satisfied. But more, how can we not love the One, who would descend from heaven for us and offer Himself on our behalf?

It makes sense to love Christ who was willing to sacrifice himself for us. But what is the reason from the view of Catholics that we should love the Father who allowed his Son to suffer so much assuming he could have found another way to achieve justice and for Christ to show his love?

Edited July 5, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Malc said:

I get what you are saying. But you seem to be inferring that I claimed that Jesus was forced to volunteer: '... so perhaps it was God who was "coerced" into choosing ...'

If my comment implied that, then I misspoke: being the only one qualified and being forced to volunteer are two different things. I assume that Jesus had free will - though I'm really not sure how to define that in this case (or any other for that matter) - and could have chosen to to sacrifice himself.

Thank you -- I was incorporating other comments about coercion and force into my reply to you; I probably should have replied to the poster(s) using the terms As I read your post carefully, you did not misspeak as far as I am concerned, but I interpreted your post as backing these views.

The way I view it is that Jesus chose to do the work to become like God all along, motivated by love for the Father and an expanding love for the rest of us. Then he chose to continue that work as He was added greater and greater glory and progress to the point of organizing (creating, ruling) physical probationary estates. We often consider labor a form of sacrifice leading to greater joy. Sometimes we consider it a grind, sometimes unjust punishment, that can be avoided (rather than being the price for joy, it is the preventer or remover of joy).

Considering His overall positive experience with sacrifice all along, I think it reasonable that He saw the events in Gethsemane and the cross as part of what was required to do what He proposed in Abraham 3: 25-26. This didn't make it any easier and He knew He had to put His all into it, which is why I see Him as being quite intentional.

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

The problematic part is determining that only one child is good enough to carry out the sacrifice. That is what I was responding to in @Malc's statement.

In my understanding, “good enough” means “capable”. Do you interpret it differently?

Is it the implication of a hierarchy of capable-ness among God’s children that you view as problematic or is it something else I’m not understanding?

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It makes sense to love Christ who was willing to sacrifice himself for us. But what is the reason from the view of Catholics that we should love the Father who allowed his Son to suffer so much assuming he could have found another way to achieve justice and for Christ to show his love?

Thank you cal. You have raised an excellent question that deserves an eloquent response that gives to the Father the highest praise, glory, and adoration. I hesitate when I know I can only fail. But I am also happy and honoured to be asked to shed some light on what can only be an inexhaustible mystery. 

Glory be to the Father...

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

Whatever the reason for the ban, its lifting happened exactly when it was supposed to happen. IMO.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Glory be to the Father...

Amen.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Whatever the reason for the ban, its lifting happened exactly when it was supposed to happen. IMO.

Is this a faith position or a reasoned one? And if a reasoned one, why was 1978 the right time?

[Peacefully]

On 7/3/2024 at 10:20 PM, Calm said:

I was thinking of that because I have taken to playing with my silicon earplugs, but not quite satisfying as it’s slightly sticky.  And sticky putty (to put up paper on walls or keeps things in place on shelves) is too stiff, though I love pulling it apart. Some reviews of the kind I looked at put me off for some reason that I can remember.  Is there a kind you recommend?  Sensitive to smells (of course).

I’ll look and PM you so I don’t continue to hi-jack this thread:) 

[Calm]

I just came across a story on a Chinese drama that made me think of this thread..it had that horrific, what the heck quality to it that I think quite a few feel when they consider why would God allow his innocent son to be tortured or other innocents suffer for what appears to be needless reasons.

Two gods wanted to test a king’s sincerity.  One transformed into a hawk, the other a small white dove.  The hawk chased the dove.  The dove flew into the king’s arms crying “please save me, please save me”.  The king “being a sincere person” told the hawk to eat his flesh rather than the dove’s (yes, this would be my exact response if a dove talked to me and asked for my help!). The hawk exclaimed “but I want flesh of the exact weight of the dove”.  The king agreed and ordered his servant to bring a scale (I think a side of beef would be more appropriate myself).  The king set the dove on one side of the scale and then sliced off some flesh from his leg and placed it on the other side.  But it wasn’t enough, so the king sliced off more flesh from his other leg.  You can see where this is going.  After much slicing and dicing to the point of no flesh left on his legs, the king finally “with great difficulty” threw his entire body on the scale and gave his life for the dove.  The two gods were greatly impressed with his sincerity, having only expected him to give up his legs and they granted him godhood as a reward.

Question from little girl with a kind of disgusted look on her face:  why would the gods need to cut a person’s flesh off to test sincerity?  Answer by chuckling, patronizing elder with long beard:  so many people pray to the gods claiming to be sincere; [insert big sigh at the folly of mankind], if not for unbearable suffering how can we know who is the truly sincere?

Maybe the perceived necessity of Jesus’ suffering ties into that type of mentality.  I wonder how widespread that view is.

Edited July 6, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I just came across a story on a Chinese drama that made me think of this thread..it had that horrific, what the heck quality to it that I think quite a few feel when they consider why would God allow his innocent son to be tortured or other innocents suffer for what appears to be needless reasons.

Two gods wanted to test a king’s sincerity.  One transformed into a hawk, the other a small white dove.  The hawk chased the dove.  The dove flew into the king’s arms crying “please save me, please save me”.  The king “being a sincere person” told the hawk to eat his flesh rather than the dove’s (yes, this would be my exact response if a dove talked to me and asked for my help!). The hawk exclaimed “but I want flesh of the exact weight of the dove”.  The king agreed and ordered his servant to bring a scale (I think a side of beef would be more appropriate myself).  The king set the dove on one side of the scale and then sliced off some flesh from his leg and placed it on the other side.  But it wasn’t enough, so the king sliced off more flesh from his other leg.  You can see where this is going.  After much slicing and dicing to the point of no flesh left on his legs, the king finally “with great difficulty” threw his entire body on the scale and gave his life for the dove.  The two gods were greatly impressed with his sincerity, having only expected him to give up his legs and they granted him godhood as a reward.

Question from little girl with a kind of disgusted look on her face:  why would the gods need to cut a person’s flesh off to test sincerity?  Answer by chuckling, patronizing elder with long beard:  so many people pray to the gods claiming to be sincere; [insert big sigh at the folly of mankind], if not for unbearable suffering how can we know who is the truly sincere?

Maybe the perceived necessity of Jesus’ suffering ties into that type of mentality.  I wonder how widespread that view is.

Some people venerate and worship suffering.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Some people venerate and worship suffering.

It is a big thing in Asian drama…it is almost always a tragedy even if it starts out a comedy.  Major suffering.  I sometimes skip over those parts.

[Maestrophil]

On 7/3/2024 at 9:41 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it your position that the only reason Jesus came to earth was to be tortured to death? And that if that doesn’t make sense he came to earth for no reason? Or did I misread that?

I believe that is the general Christian position, yes...  The So of God became man to take on the sin of the world - otherwise, why wouldn't He just stay where he was?  Of course, that doesn't help answer why God would need to send His Son.  The only real explanation I have heard is that God has to have a price paid for sin to satisfy the law of Justice, and if He doesn't follow ale, He ceases to be God.  I don't understand it fully, but I trust in what the scriptures say about it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I believe that is the general Christian position, yes...  The So of God became man to take on the sin of the world - otherwise, why wouldn't He just stay where he was?  Of course, that doesn't help answer why God would need to send His Son.  The only real explanation I have heard is that God has to have a price paid for sin to satisfy the law of Justice, and if He doesn't follow ale, He ceases to be God.  I don't understand it fully, but I trust in what the scriptures say about it.

That’s just weird I guess. I was taught that was one of his purposes, but only one. Like I was taught he was an example of how to live. We are supposed to get baptized because he was. That he exemplified a good life of love, obedience, and forgiveness. That he came to leave his teachings for us to follow. It’s just weird to think that I missed that the only reason for his life was to be tortured and that the rest served no purpose or reason. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I believe that is the general Christian position, yes...  The So of God became man to take on the sin of the world - otherwise, why wouldn't He just stay where he was?  Of course, that doesn't help answer why God would need to send His Son.  The only real explanation I have heard is that God has to have a price paid for sin to satisfy the law of Justice, and if He doesn't follow ale, He ceases to be God.  I don't understand it fully, but I trust in what the scriptures say about it.

I think He sent His Son because He is not going to regress into an earlier estate and thus relinquish the position and role described in Abraham 3: 21-23, leaving no one else in His place. Jesus, on the other hand, had yet to progress into the second estate and overcome it.

The sacrifice -- the work involved -- began long before and continues long after Gethsemane and the cross, but these two events were necessary for realizing in the second estate the victory over the unavoidable consequences of this estate (spiritual and physical death) for every person brought into it, because we could not accomplish this ourselves. He led our victory in the pre-mortal  war in heaven, and His Father organized us in His post-mortal presence (advancing us from some earlier estate from which we could not escape ourselves -- our "pre-pre"-mortal estate was co-eternal with His post-mortal estate).  We needed help in the second estate, just as in the other prior estates, and Abraham 3:19 shows the baked-in existential solution.

[JVW]

On 7/4/2024 at 2:17 PM, MrShorty said:

I'm inclined to agree with you that we are not held accountable for sins that we don't know about. One direction my thoughts tend to go is towards a kind of universalism, because it seems there are very few sins that we can really "KNOW" are sins. So much of the discussion about sin is trying to determine what is and is not sin. If we can never really KNOW that things are sin, then maybe there is nothing we will be held accountable for, and we will all be saved and exalted (after sufficient time and effort in the next life to clear up all of our misunderstandings). Another direction is a kind of "moral relativism" where there is no absolute moral truth to sin against, only our own perceptions and judgements of what is sin. To a Kosher Jew who believes God has declared eating pork or shellfish a sin, then he is accountable for committing that sin, but the rest of us who believe God doesn't consider it a sin are free to eat what we want. Or, should said Kosher Jew decide that God no longer considers violations of those dietary laws a sin (a process of "deconstruction"?), then they are no longer sin for him. Is there absolute moral truth to sin against, or is it all based on our perceptions (group and individual) of what is and is not sin?

One of the most important things I get out of these discussions is ideas about how we think revelation actually works. I find the last part of the quoted comment fascinating. To think that God withholds revelation from us and only grants the absolute minimum revelation necessary is quite intriguing. I can see how the first idea about how we are only accountable for what we know lead to there being a kind of advantage to being ignorant of moral law. To characterize God as being reluctant to reveal moral law to us so that we can remain ignorant because He has determined that is the easiest/best way to save and exalt His children seems interesting. I will have to think on that some more.

I am very bad at repenting. I have had a very difficult time understanding repentance, but recently have been making a lot of effort in order to improve in this area. I'd like to communicate one thing I've learned recently that I believe was revealed to me by God, but please don't regard this thought as doctrine. It's only a couple of weeks old and hasn't had a long time to simmer to iron out the rough edges.

Mosiah 4:29 "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."

How am I supposed to repent of my sins when I can't even number all the ways I can commit sin. There are so many that I'm not aware of. And the more I try to focus on everything I'm doing wrong so that I can repent of it the more I find feelings of self-hatred growing. I feel like a focus on repenting of specific sins causes an internal division, it's like trying to walk on many paths at the same time. Not to mention how just a single sin can keep coming back hundreds of times making me feel like I'm banging my head against a wall.

I don't believe anymore that repentance is about saying sorry for specific things I do wrong. I believe that instead of focusing on the many, repentance should be about focusing on the One. I apologize to God for missing the mark, the mark being Jesus Christ. He gets out of focus, I put Him to the side, I spend my time and energy worshipping other gods. Repenting is bringing Christ back to the center of my life and as a result of that my sins start to slough off of me.

There are very few things that an individual knows is a sin. I know certain things are sins because of my experience with them, but many sins I don't actually -know- are sins. I believe that the commandments are a description of what a good disciple of Christ looks like. They aren't a mold to be conformed to, but rather I can look at my own actions and the more in line they are with the commandments the more assured I can feel that I'm on the right path because my nature is becoming holy.

In a way I agree with your relativism view, but of the very few things I know, one of them is that there is an objective moral law. I just wanted to be clear there. But the way you are describing it makes sense. Different people believe in different rules and live their lives differently and they will be held accountable differently. However, the point of a moral law is to draw one's soul to Christ. If someone is abstaining from pork out of a sense of legalism, they are missing the mark. But if they are doing it because it helps them draw closer to the God of Israel, then they will be blessed for it. I believe that where I end up depends entirely on my relationship with Christ. Christ is the rock upon which I must build my foundation, not the church, not the commandments.

One last point I want to make. The Telestial Kingdom is heaven. All degrees of glory are heaven. Most people I speak with in the church view the Telestial kingdom as hell when it is not. Everyone who has ever lived will be getting much more than they could possibly hope for. If one is "condemned" to the Telestial Kingdom, they will be in for a real treat. Ultimately, all of us shouldn't receive a resurrection or any degree of glory. We should all be cast off from God's presence forever. I have never known of any person that I personally can judge as being worthy to even receive Telestial glory, let alone Celestial. I don't know which kingdom anyone will end up in. I hope for the best, but the worst is beyond our capacity to imagine in splendor and purity.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, JVW said:

Most people I speak with in the church view the Telestial kingdom as hell when it is not.

I think some of the confusion is based on the fact that those who do end up in the Telestial Kingdom spend time in hell prior to this in order to be purified of their sins so they can endure the glory of God that exists within this kingdom.

Also because those who inhabit the TK are said to be “murderers, liars, sorcerers, adulterers, and whoremongers—in general, the wicked people of the earth (see D&C 76:103; Revelation 22:15)” and of course we think of those as deserving of hell.  But the hell they experience before entering the TK ensures that whatever else they are, they are no longer “murderers, liars, sorcerers, adulterers, and whoremongers” when they join the Telestial Kingdom.  By then they will be pure in heart even if perhaps their hearts aren’t that filled with love for others or God (I would hope over time this too is part of the process, but it seems it will be their choice and I can imagine some will choose not to grow in charity).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/33-kingdoms-of-glory-and-perdition?lang=eng#p29

Edited July 8, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

On 7/5/2024 at 11:27 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Whatever the reason for the ban, its lifting happened exactly when it was supposed to happen. IMO.

Is this a faith position or a reasoned one? And if a reasoned one, why was 1978 the right time?

For me, it is both.  By way of "reasoning," I have considered various sources, including Edward Kimball's excellent essay, Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood, which traces the history of the man and the revelation which ended it.  Further, OD-2 itself seems to indicate that the revelation was a long time coming:

Quote

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

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, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

(Emphases added.)

See also this information about David O. McKay:

Quote

According to Prince's book, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, Pres. McKay was evaluating the issue extensively as early as 1954 (p. 103), and continued to grapple with it for many years afterward.  Prince also states that Pres. McKay "made a conscious decision not to enter the fray of the emerging  civil rights  movement that came of age during his presidency," (p. 104), and yet you here seem to be positioning the Civil Rights movement as a key motivating factor for the 1978 revelation ("I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle").

Prince goes on to say that "{o}n several occasions ... [Pres. McKay] had opportunities to reverse the church's long-standing legacy of racial discrimination.  Yet each time he chose to turn away" (p. 104).  He also states that Pres. McKay "softened the ban around the edges, intervening to extend priesthood blessings to individuals where he could, and repeatedly pleading with the Lord for a complete reversal ... On uncounted occasions, he sought unsuccessfully to call down the revelation that would have changed the ban, a revelation that came to one of his successors eight years after his death.  This largely undocumented and almost wholly unknown struggle means that it is no stretch to assert that David O. McKay built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests" (p. 106).

This is also quite illuminating (p. 103):

Quote

His earliest inquiry, as far as we have record ... occurredin 1954 ... Other inquiries followed, though generally the dates are not known.  On one occasion his daughter-in-law, Mildred Calderwood McKay, who served on the general board of the Primary ... expressed her anguish that black male children, who commingled with white children during their Primary years (through age twelve), were excluded from the Aaronic Priesthood when they turned twelve.  "Can't they be ordained also?"  She asked.  He replied sadly, "No."  "Then I think it is time for a new revelation."  He answered, "So do I."

Marian D. Hanks ... related an incident from a [] trip to Vietname, in which he had comforted a woulded black LDS soldier.  As he told the story, McKay began to weep.  Referring to the priesthood ban, McKay said, "I have prayed and prayed and prayed, but there has been no answer."

Prince also provides this fascinating account (p. 104):

Quote

But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 to McKay's death in 1970:

Quote

I remember one day that President McKay came into the office.  We could see that he was very much distressed.  He said, "I've had it!  I'm not going to do it again!"  Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro.  I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly.  The last time I did it was late last night.  I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

This uncharacteristic outburst in the presence of an astonished church architect highlights the contrast between two strands in McKay's thought that are, by today's standard, inseparably joined: civil rights for blacks and priesthood ordination for black men.  The blurring, combined with McKay's own reticence, means that this difference has not been understood until now.

 

By Prince's accounting, Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to to leave the subject alone, to not bring it up again, and that it would happen in the future.

I don't think any of us can speak competently regarding "why was 1978 the right time."  The Lord's timing is seldom explained to us.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

For me, it is both.  By way of "reasoning," I have considered various sources, including Edward Kimball's excellent essay, Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood, which traces the history of the man and the revelation which ended it. 

Which part of this provides reasoning for 1978 being "exactly" the right time? It's a 75 page article. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Further, OD-2 itself seems to indicate that the revelation was a long time coming:

(Emphases added.)

See also this information about David O. McKay:

By Prince's accounting, Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to to leave the subject alone, to not bring it up again, and that it would happen in the future.

I don't think any of us can speak competently regarding "why was 1978 the right time."  The Lord's timing is seldom explained to us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Which part of that was reasoned? Like what was it about 1978 that made it the right time? You accept on faith that God said no to McKay correct? What part of that is a reasoned approach? Why did he say no? What factors led to the "no"? How do we know God actually said no? Isn't that all based on faith? Faith that "the lord's timing is seldom explained to us?"

 

Edited to add, I’m not trying to call your faith in prophets unreasoned btw. I get you have reasons for your faith. I’m just not seeing any reasoning to support 1978  as the “exact” right time. 

Edited July 8, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Which part of this provides reasoning for 1978 being "exactly" the right time? It's a 75 page article. 

Not just this article.  Prince's biography of Pres. McKay is also relevant, as is the language in OD-2.

I think the leaders of the Church spent a long time trying to sort out the priesthood ban.  If Prince's historical sources are to be credited, the timing of the revelation is not reasonable ascribed to neglect or indifference, as Pres. McKay was giving this matter a lot of attention.

Pres. McKay passed in 1970, and was succeeded by Joseph Fielding Smith.  His tenure was short, 2.5 years.  Then came Pres. Harold B. Lee, who also had a brief tenure (1.5 years).  Then came Pres. Kimball.  He had clearly given the matter a lot of thought:

Quote

In the years prior to his presidency, Kimball kept a binder of notes and clippings related to the issue.^[74] In the first years of his presidency, he was recorded as frequently making the issue one of investigation and prayer.^[75] In June 1977, Kimball asked at least three general authorities—apostles Bruce R. McConkie, Thomas S. Monson, and Boyd K. Packer—to write him memoranda "on the doctrinal basis of the prohibition and how a change might affect the Church." McConkie wrote a long treatise concluding there were no scriptural impediments to a change.^[75] In 1977, Kimball obtained a personal key to the Salt Lake Temple for entering in the evenings after the temple closed and often spent hours alone in its upper rooms praying for divine guidance on a possible change.^[76] On May 30, 1978, Kimball presented his two counselors with a statement that he had written in longhand that removed all racial restrictions on ordination to the priesthood, stating that he "had a good, warm feeling about it".^[77]

(Emphases added.)

I am not aware of any substantive evidence in the historical record indicating that Pres. Kimball approached this issue as being primarily a matter of politics, social/legal pressures, institutional reputation/cachet, etc.  There is, instead, ample evidence that he approached it as I would have hoped: with study, thought, prayer, counsel, temple attendance, etc.

The Wikipedia article continues:

Quote

On June 1, 1978, following the monthly meeting of general authorities in the Salt Lake Temple, Kimball asked his counselors and the ten members of Quorum of the Twelve Apostles then present^[b] to remain behind for a special meeting.^[78] Kimball began by describing his studies, thoughts, and prayers on removing the restriction and on his growing assurance that the time had come for the change.^[78] Kimball asked each of the men present to share their views, and all spoke in favor of changing the policy.^[78] After all present had shared their views, Kimball led the gathered apostles in a prayer circle to seek final divine approval for the change.^[78] As Kimball prayed, many in the group recorded feeling a powerful spiritual confirmation.^[79] Bruce R. McConkie later said: "There are no words to describe the sensation, but simultaneously the Twelve and the three members of the First Presidency had the Holy Ghost descend upon them and they knew that God had manifested his will.... I had had some remarkable spiritual experiences before... but nothing of this magnitude."^[80] L. Tom Perry described: "I felt something like the rushing of wind. There was a feeling that came over the whole group. When President Kimball got up he was visibly relieved and overjoyed."^[81] Gordon B. Hinckley later said: "For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren."^[82]

(Emphases added.)

Nothing in there about input from pollsters, focus groups, lawyers, public relations experts, etc.  Instead, the Brethren discussed the matter, prayed about it, had a strong confirming experience, and proceeded accordingly.

That this stuff happened in 1978 is, to me, not really relevant.  That it happened at all is the main thing.  Based on the above-presented materials, I concur that the lifting of the ban "happened exactly when it was supposed to happen."

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Which part of that was reasoned?

Your questions were: "Is this a faith position or a reasoned one? And if a reasoned one, why was 1978 the right time?"

I sort of reject the premise of the first question, as I believe that most "faith position{s}" have substantial elements of reasoning to them.  Here, for example, the origins of the ban were always opaque, perhaps even to the point of dubiousness.  Moreover, Pres. Grant and Pres. McKay examined the issue, but ultimately did not act to remove the ban (Pres. McKay's experiences being particularly illuminating).  Pres. Kimball spent years considering the matter, and did so appropriately (via study, prayer, temple, etc.).  

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Like what was it about 1978 that made it the right time?

Nothing about 1978 in particular.  It being the "right time" arose, I think, because the Presiding High Priest at the time, Pres. Kimball, gave over extensive though, study, prayer, etc. to address the matter, culminating in a revelation to end the ban.  In contrast, Pres. McKay had also given the matter a lot of thought, but was told to leave the matter along, to not raise it with the Lord, that things would happen in the future, etc.  

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You accept on faith that God said no to McKay correct?  What part of that is a reasoned approach?

I accept this on faith and on reasoning.  Pres. McKay, Pres. Kimball, etc. were good and decent men, and about whom the historical record shows rather clearly that they were motivated by sincerity and good will.  It is therefore reasonable for me to conclude that they acted in conformity with their reputations and character.  Pres. McKay was a good man who wanted to change or get rid of the ban, but felt he could not.  Pres. Kimball was likewise a good man who wanted to discern whether the time had come to get rid of the ban, and he concluded that the time had arrived.

Character and behavioral evidence of this sort is, for me, as much a matter of reasoning as it is a matter of faith.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why did he say no?

I don't know.  That is a separate question, in my view, and an imponderable one.

Pres. McKay had ample motives to remove the ban.  As Prince noted, "{o}n several occasions ... [Pres. McKay] had opportunities to reverse the church's long-standing legacy of racial discrimination.  Yet each time he chose to turn away" (p. 104).  He also states that Pres. McKay "softened the ban around the edges, intervening to extend priesthood blessings to individuals where he could, and repeatedly pleading with the Lord for a complete reversal ... On uncounted occasions, he sought unsuccessfully to call down the revelation that would have changed the ban, a revelation that came to one of his successors eight years after his death.  This largely undocumented and almost wholly unknown struggle means that it is no stretch to assert that David O. McKay built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests" (p. 106).

A critic or skeptic is, I suppose, at liberty to impute incorrigible racism or other negative attributes onto Pres. McKay as an explanation for why he did not rescind the ban.  I don't think the extant evidence supports such a notion (quite the contrary, in fact).

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What factors led to the "no"?

I don't know.  AFAIK, we have no particular revelatory sources on this point.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How do we know God actually said no?

The same way we can "know" that Heavenly Father exists, that He is perfect and benevolent, that He presented the Plan of Salvation to us, that this Plan centers on His Son, Jesus Christ, that Christ was born of Mary, lived a sinless life, atoned for our sins, was killed, and resurrected on the third day, that Christ restored His Gospel through Joseph Smith, that we have prophetic and spiritual guidance as to these matters, and so on.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Isn't that all based on faith?

Acceptance of these things is ultimately, but not solely, a matter of faith.  Study.  Ponder.  Pray.  Seek revelation.  Much of this can be correlated to revelation about The Book of Mormon.  If that book is what it claims to be, then the foregoing matters become revealed truths. 

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Faith that "the lord's timing is seldom explained to us?"

That's part of it, yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 8, 2024 by smac97

[Damien the Leper]

On 7/5/2024 at 6:51 AM, bluebell said:

In my understanding, “good enough” means “capable”. Do you interpret it differently?

Is it the implication of a hierarchy of capable-ness among God’s children that you view as problematic or is it something else I’m not understanding?

The implication of hierarchy. There is too much unknown about the LDS pre-existence. Was Jesus the most capable? If not, why was he settled on? I'm, again, just thinking out loud.

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

The implication of hierarchy. There is too much unknown about the LDS pre-existence. Was Jesus the most capable? If not, why was he settled on? I'm, again, just thinking out loud.

Yes, there was/is something especially different and special about Jesus that made Him, and Him alone, uniquely qualified to be the atoning Savior:

"19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." (Abraham 3)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I sort of reject the premise of the first question, as I believe that most "faith position{s}" have substantial elements of reasoning to them

Yeah, I tried to clarify with my edit, but my framing was a little bit off. It seems that your position is that prophets from at least the 1940's were seeking divine guidance on the ban. Therefore based on your faith in prophets, 1978 was "exactly" the right time, because that's when your prophets claimed to received revelation.

I think that's fine as far it as it goes, but it's utterly unconvincing to anyone who doesn't believe in your prophets. That was the gist of what I was trying to get at with my question. Is there anything aside from faith in the revelatory process that supports the idea that 1978 was exactly the right time. 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Much of this can be correlated to revelation about The Book of Mormon.  If that book is what it claims to be, then the foregoing matters become revealed truths. 

This is just specious logic. Built into this assumption was that Joseph did not become a fallen prophet (as many of his original followers believed - maintaining faith in the BOM, but not in Joseph Smith). Additionally it assumes that Brigham was right and all the other branches and sects that stem from Joseph Smith are false. Additionally it assumes that Brigham and his successors have not apostatized or gone significantly astray. This trope might be useful in an unexamined faith, but seems pretty far off the mark to me. 

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yeah, I tried to clarify with my edit, but my framing was a little bit off. It seems that your position is that prophets from at least the 1940's were seeking divine guidance on the ban. Therefore based on your faith in prophets, 1978 was "exactly" the right time, because that's when your prophets claimed to received revelation.

I'm not particularly focused on the "exactly" thing, but I suppose the timing of the revelation was correct because the Lord chose it.  Of course, these presupposes that God exists, that He is perfect in every respect, omniscient, omnipotent, and so on.  If God is as I believe Him to be, He does not make mistakes.

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think that's fine as far it as it goes, but it's utterly unconvincing to anyone who doesn't believe in your prophets.

I agree.  The timing of a revelation is downstream from a lot of things, such as whether there was a revelation at all, whether the recipients were prophets and apostles, whether they had authority and standing before God to receive such a revelation, whether there was any "priesthood" to be extended, and so on.

OD-2 is only a declaration relevant to those who imbue it with meaning and significance. 

Muslims around the world believe that they must, during their daily prayers, pray in the direction of the Kaaba, a practice "believed by Muslims to be a result of a Quranic verse revelation to Muhammad."  You could likewise say "that's fine as far it as it goes, but it's utterly unconvincing to anyone who doesn't believe in {Muhammad as a prophet}."

Most observant Catholics subscribe, to some extent. to the concept of Papal infallibility.  You could likewise say "that's fine as far it as it goes, but it's utterly unconvincing to anyone who doesn't believe in {Papal supremacy}."

And so on.  

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That was the gist of what I was trying to get at with my question. Is there anything aside from faith in the revelatory process that supports the idea that 1978 was exactly the right time. 

I don't know what you are looking for here.  Yours is a question of faith which cannot be empirically answered, nor can any answer be demonstrated, falsified, proven or disproven.

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is just specious logic.

I think it is specious logic to to expect questions of faith to be empirically answerable/testable.  If they were empirically testable, they wouldn't be questions of faith.

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Built into this assumption was that Joseph did not become a fallen prophet (as many of his original followers believed - maintaining faith in the BOM, but not in Joseph Smith).  Additionally it assumes that Brigham was right and all the other branches and sects that stem from Joseph Smith are false. Additionally it assumes that Brigham and his successors have not apostatized or gone significantly astray.

Yes.  Hence the nonfeasibility of your question.  Do you fault Muslims who presuppose Muhammed was Allah's prophet, or Catholics who presuppose Papal supremacy?  Do you criticize their beliefs because they hold these untestable assumptions?

There are a number of big assumptions you did not address: God exists, we are His spirit children, Jesus Christ is His Son, we accepted the Plan of Salvation, the Plan centers accepting truths and acting in accordance with them, which acceptance arises from revelation through prophets and apostles, and to the individual.

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This trope might be useful in an unexamined faith, but seems pretty far off the mark to me. 

I have examined my faith a lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2024 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you are looking for here.  Yours is a question of faith which cannot be empirically answered, nor can any answer be demonstrated, falsified, proven or disproven.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m not looking for anything. I merely asked if his answer was based on faith [in the revelotory process] or reasoning. If the latter I was interested in why he said what he did. If the former, I had no follow-up question. Because there is nothing more to say to that. You can’t debate faith. 
 

 

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes. 
 

Exactly so maybe don’t say it next time, since it clearly misses several steps. 

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hence the nonfeasibility of your question.

Which question was that? Here is what I said:

“Is this a faith position or a reasoned one? And if a reasoned one, why was 1978 the right time?”

With the understanding that I consider your answer wholly based on faith [in your prophet’s revelatory process], what part of the question is not feasible?

Edited July 9, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it is specious logic to to expect questions of faith to be empirically answerable/testable.  If they were empirically testable, they wouldn't be questions of faith.

I just wanted to add, for someone that claims to being against logical fallacies, you sure do a lot of strawmanning.