mikbone

Ok lets have a civil discussion about past prophets being led by the spirit on any other controversial topic (perhaps Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory). This specific topic for obvious reasons, should not be discussed in the manner you suggest.

I like where you are going with this. And yes it would make a great discussion. What I was implying is that OD-2 is technically LDS Doctrine. And that since the time of Joseph Smith there have been very limited new revelations that become Doctrine. The priesthood ban was never LDS Doctrine. It was policy. I am unsure about how it was instagated. My current position is that that policy was uninspired. Or perhaps equally as inspired as Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory.

Holland's counsel speaks for itself. How can you personally claim that there was a 'very good chance that the policy was divinely approved'? Were you there? Have you personally requested revelation and received a visit from our Savior in which He instructed to you that these events transpired and that there were indeed inspired from God? Or are you working on what you believe is common sense and faith and what you feel is correct based upon your intuition, and understand from reading 3rd person accounts etc. There have been very few direct revelations given to man status post the Joseph Smith era. This is probably for a reason. Section 135 - John Taylor of the council of the 12 Section 136 - Brigham Young Official Declaration 1 - Wilford Woodruff Section 138 - Joseph F. Smith Official Declaration 2 - Spencer W. Kimball What good can possibly come from your line of argument?

"Our speculations as to the reason(s) (for the priesthood ban) have been essentially worthless, and sometimes harmful," Daniel C. Peterson wrote. "God has not seen fit to explain why he commanded or at least permitted the denial of priesthood to blacks. "We certainly don't know that God withheld the priesthood from blacks in order to protect them, or because they weren't 'ready' for it, or because it 'benefited' them to be denied access to the temple or opportunities to serve missions, and the like," he continued. "We just don't know. And if we ever learn the reason, that knowledge will come through the Lord's chosen prophets and apostles, not through BYU professors like me." Peterson's position is in line with statements made by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve in a March 2006 interview with Helen Whitney of PBS. During the interview, Elder Holland referred to speculations — including those by early church leaders — about the reasons why blacks could not hold the LDS priesthood for a period of time as "folklore" that "must never be perpetuated." "All I can say is, however well-intentioned the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong," Elder Holland said. "It would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, (as) with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time ... We simply don't know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place." Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject: "The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine." Deseret News, LDS Church condemns past racism 'inside and outside the church', Feb 29, 2012

The Father and the Son - Ensign Apr. 2002 - ensign

revelance to this thread?

your post #157 is well put together. thank you

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject: "The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine." deseretnews.com mobile Church Statement Regarding 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church - LDS Newsroom

You on the other hand seem to be asserting that Brigham Young and other early prophets did receive revelation for the Church, that specifically withheld the blessings of the priesthood for worthy Africans. For which they did not feel the need to reveal as doctrine in a written format for canonization... Or am I just misunderstanding you? I am unclear of your meaning...

It combined with my personal belief is sufficient for me... I do not require it to be sufficient for you... My conclusions are my own. Do you believe that every comment that Brigham Young made was direct revelation from God? Have you read the Adam-God Theory? And yes Joseph Smith is a personal hero of mine. Amen.

I based my conclusion on the following... Abel was born in Maryland as a slave, and is believed to have escaped slavery on the Underground Railroad into Canada. He was baptized into the Church of Christ in September 1832 by Ezekiel Roberts, and he married Mary Ann Adams, another African-American. Abel was ordained an elder on March 3, 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio by Joseph Smith. In 1839, Abel was made a member of the Nauvoo Seventies Quorum. While living in Nauvoo, Illinois, he worked as a mortician at the request of Joseph Smith. Elijah Abel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Joseph Smith's views of the true nature of the African American, according to the modern view, may be seen in the following exchange (as recorded in History of the Church, Volume 5, p. 216): Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on.

Thought I was... Seems - Used to make a statement or description of one's thoughts, feelings, or actions less assertive or forceful. (Merriam-Webster) Yet President Kimball was the only Prophet to receive direct revelation concerning this question that became canonized...

That is the point. Joseph Smith did not deny the Priesthood to Africans. It seems to me that it was a policy put into place without revelation.

First and Second Comforter There is two Comforters spoken of [one] is the Holy Ghost the same as given on the day of pentecost and that all Saints receive after faith. Repentance & Baptism. This first comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind enlightening the understanding & storeing the intellect with present knowledge of a man who is of the literal Seed of Abraham than one that is a gentile though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the Literal Seed of Abraham it is calm & serene & his whole soul & body are only exercised by the pure spirit of Intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile is to purge out the old blood & make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost, in such a case there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body & visible to the eye than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence Joseph Smith, Jr., June 27, 1839, as recorded in the Williard Richards Pocket Companion

My current view (I reserve the right to change my mind due to further revelation or scientific knowledge). The Earth is freaking old. Days 1-5 likely took near 4.6 billion years. I believe that when Joseph Smith said, "This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live." I think that he was basing his comments on a vision that The Lord gave him wherein he saw a first generation star go supernova and then that debris was organized into an new protoplanetary disk, which later produced our Earth. I have no problem with Man being on Earth only 6K years. MEE (Mass Extinction Events) have occurred many times during the history of our planet. I bet that Heavenly Father was teaching Jehovah how to create life, and that He did the trial and error learning on dianosaurs, neanderthals, etc. All God would have to do, is set up the Garden of Eden by preceding it with a MEE and then travel to Earth and create Adam and Eve. Quick and Dirty.

Your words: Take your time. I would appreciate the quote.

Legion (Mark 5:2-13) is a good example of what I mean by an evil spirit... You stated it was not a natural progression for Heavenly Father's spirit children to receive material bodies... You are wrong. It is the natural progression. Only a third of the pre-mortal existence spirits were denied bodies and only because they openly rebelled against Father. Everyone else will be reunited with their body during their respective resurrection, even the Sons of Perdition. And the third that followed Lucifer have great enmity toward us mortals. They want us to fail because they desire us to be as unhappy as they are. Perhaps they are unhappy because they have been damned and denied a body... You are trying to argue that it is not normal for all Father's children to become as Father is. I agree. Many of the souls that are tested in second estate will be damned and fail. But that was not the issue of our discussion. Our discussion was about it being natural for a spirit child of Heavenly Father to have a body... The scriptures that I refered to support this concept. Furthermore, those that do progress according to the plan of salvation will have the opportunity to become like Heavenly Father. I believe that Father wants everyone of us to succede. Depends on how you look at it. Elohim created their spirits so yes, they are technically his offspring. On the other hand those of the third host that followed Lucifer have probably been 'adopted' as his children. I would assume that they consider Lucifer as their father...

What about evil spirits possessing the bodies of animals and even other children of God? I'll say straight up that I don't know how the interactions occur between element and spirit. Conversely, there is nothing to suggest that course matter cannot affect fine matter in a controlled or purposeful way. The scriptures disagre with your above statement. D&C 93:33-34, D&C 45:17, D&C 138:17,50 We are the offspring of resurrected eternal beings of Flesh and Bone. Our natural progression is to become as they are. I am completely confused with your assertations... Your proof?

Perhaps. I don't pretend to know what happened on day one. But if I was to make assumptions based on both modern day prophets and science... Part one Earth Formed from other Planets "This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live." (Joseph Smith Jr., Instructions delivered at the opening of the "Lyceum" at Smith homestead, Nauvoo, Ill., January 5, 1841, as recorded in the Clayton Record) This description very closely resembles what astrophysicist say occurs during a supernova event. Supernova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For brevity, in a supernova model, as a star larger than our sun goes through its life cycle it starts to burn the lighter elements into more and more heavier elements through fusion and a series of core collapses. Eventually a Nickel-Iron core is created which in turn cannot exert enough outward pressure to prevent a the atomic nuclei themselves from collapsing. This in turn causes the entire star to implode and collapse. Which then creates a massive pressure and temperature increase that causes the supernova explosion. The supernova model would explain Joseph Smith's comment that our earth was made from other planets, and also how our planet is composed of many heavy elements. This event of course would explain the creation of light as supernova are extremely luminous events. Part two "Again as a proof that matter is eternal and that this earth was formed out of unorganized matter let a man take a good telescope at 4 AM and look at the sword in the belt of Orion. And he can see unorganized matter enough to make a million worlds each as large as the sun." (Orson Pratt, meeting of the twelve apostles on September 13, 1846 as recorded by Wilford Woodruff) Orson Pratt was spot on according to our current observations. Protoplanetary disk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you check out this link, the first image that you see on the top right is a star forming region within the Orion Nebula just as Orson Pratt described over 150 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if Joseph Smith had privately explained these concepts to Pratt. If you look very closely at the image, you can see where God is dividing the light from the darkness. These protoplanetary discs are where new young stars as well as planets are organized out of the debris and shockwave of supernovas. All in all, a pretty awesome day.

D&C 138:7-8 Yes spirit is this fine or more pure matter. Perhaps the Dark Energy that Scientist are searching for is actually this spirit matter... In that case we will never find it using the scientific method. We have no idea how spirit matter works. But it is obvious that we interact with it during our lives (those of us religious sort anyhow). Abraham chapter 4 describes the spiritual creation. The spiritual creation was done by Heavenly Father. Elohim is the architect. I think that no one during our pre-mortal existence (excepting of course Jehovah) was allowed to witness this event. Genesis & Moses deal with the physical creation that was performed by Jehovah. Jesus Christ is the carpenter. Jehovah did work directly with the coarse material. Jesus Christ created the heaven and the earth under the Father’s direction (see Moses 1:31–33 ; 2:1 ). Others were privileged to assist Him in the Creation, including Michael, or Adam. President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “It is true that Adam helped to form this earth. He labored with our Savior Jesus Christ. I have a strong view or conviction that there were others also who assisted them. Perhaps Noah and Enoch; and why not Joseph Smith, and those who were appointed to be rulers before the earth was formed?” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:74-75), This is all very plainly taught in the temple narrative.

my scriptures are wore torn and battle scarred. While I was on my mission Chile circa 1987 I was asked why I would desecrate my scriptures. I pulled out Exodus 34:1 and explained that Moses actually destroyed the original 10 commandments in a fit of anger to make a point to the Israelites. The Lord was not upset. He just made another copy. We can reproduce the scriptures at will, stone, paper, digital... What is more important the medium upon which the words are written, or if the words are written upon our hearts?

Here are some direct quotes from the article that I found. Journal of Medical Ethics Paper: 'After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?' | NewsBusters.org Abstract Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. ... An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. ... to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. ... The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual. ... Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life. ... The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence. I have had 9 newborns. They were all people. The nerve. Reminds me of the Nazi dehumanizing Jews.

Thank you. See it wasn't that hard. You know it is wrong. Black and white is easy. You and I both know that the authors of this article are trying to put forth the idea that black is white. That it is OK to kill infants if they are (sickly, unwanted, etc... who knows). And I wouldn't be suprised if this article sets a precident and becomes quoted in future medical ethic articles and abortion proponent arguements. Your comments about adding a grey area just confuse the issue. Those 4 options that you described happen many many times daily in our country. If you want to have a discusion about medical grey areas and ethics about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a overweight poorly controlled diabetic who wants to have a re-do re-do cardiac bypass surgery lets do it. But this article is about infanticide. It is wrong. Equally sinful as abortion.

The issue is the KILLING. The infanticide. I know pornography when I see it. Do you? Would you feel comfortable administering a lethal injection to a sickly infant. I would not.

I took medical ethics in medical school too. Your original 4 options have nothing to do with the article in question. The article is obviously about killing infants. Not pallative care. Not admistering drugs to hasten death. Those of us who are in the medical profession should stand up and decry this as wrong.