frederick

JAG, the church disagrees with your views here. I'm amazed at the cognitive dissonance displayed by so many people here who insist that it is simply impossible that our leaders could make a mistake. Vort outright stated that BY did not lead the saints astray. Yet, it is clear that the church has completely disavowed these views and stated plain as plain can be, that the statements in regards to the ban were made in the absence of revelation and do not represent church doctrine. If BY was wrong, as the church says he was, then he led the saints astray on this matter. In fact, for over 100 years people regurgitated the views originally spouted by Young until now when they have made it abundantly clear that these views came in the absence if revelation and do not represent church doctrine. If anyone refutes what I say, please find the quotes that were made under direct revelation. Quotes that have not been currently disavowed by the most recent position of the church. I will gladly revise my statements when I see where someone can direct me to the divinely inspired quotes that affirm the ban was from God. The scriptures, as I have shown previously, state the opposite of the prophet cannot lead you astray. It is those who cling dogmatically to this doctrine that seem to have the biggest difficulty in accepting what the church has done with its last two statements on blacks and the priesthood. Nowhere are we commanded in scriptures to place our faith in an organization. We are to have faith in Christ. No where does it say in scriptures that we are to trust men, it says the opposite, cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. To NickN, don't worry about your testimony of the church. This is not what matters, put your faith in Christ. We aren't supposed to have a testimony of a church. If your faith is in Christ, you will recognize His words. You will know the Book of Mormon is true. You will recognize His words in all of our modern scriptures as well as ancient. The frailties of men will no longer affect your testimony, because those men do not matter. We are all weak and prone to stumble. That is why it is so wrong to put your faith in men or an institution run by men. Yet, if your faith is centered on Christ, you can see His hand guiding His church. Have faith in Christ. Search for His words in the scriptures. Learn to recognize the Spirit. The only doctrine of Christ is to follow the Spirit, as it will teach you all things what you should do, until Christ shall manifest Himself unto you in the flesh.

Vort, The church said statements in regards to this were made in the direct absence of revelation. Hmm... What does that mean? Does that mean some statements were made by revelation? If that were true, they should say which ones were made by revelation. They make no such claim. Since BY made many statements regarding blacks and the priesthood, I have to assume the church was referring to him as well as others when they said these statements were made in the absence of direct revelation. Meaning, these statements did not come from God! They also say that the statements regarding the ban do not reflect church doctrine. Are you suggesting that doctrine changes? If so, that's a huge can of worms that you can feel free to open. Otherwise, I believe my statement is correct. I think it is even more honest than the church's statement because it says the obvious more plainly. Please feel free to quote the statements regarding the ban on blacks and priesthood that were made under direct revelation from God. I will happily retract my statement when I see one.

Suzie, Thank you for your comments. I guess to be fair to the other side, you are right, they are simply uncertain to what the origins of this ban are. However, this response on behalf of the church does not make the church look good either. Especially because we believe in continuing revelation. What the church admits here is that our leaders have received no revelation regarding this matter. Does this mean they haven't asked, or does it mean the heavens are shut regarding this matter? In either case the answer is not good for the church. I don't think the church has adequately addressed this issue. In fact, they may have done more harm than good to themselves by their own statements. As I stated before, who is to say now that someday in the future we may not hear a church leader proclaim that today's leaders were wrong on various issues. Honestly, if our faith is in Christ and His word as it is found in our scriptures, then I feel we have nothing to worry about. His word does not change. Clearly the words of our leaders does change. If our faith is in Christ, we will not be shaken. Lastly, Vort called me a liar. However, I simply restated the official position of the church. Vort, I think you should take your objections up with the church PR department and not me. To be clear, you said I lied when I stated that the church is unclear on the origins of the ban and that they said the ban was not from God. I will include the quote from the church and let everyone decide if I was lying or not. I will take one step further, I think their response was very weak and harmful to the church. If there was a divine origin, they should cite it. If they had divine revelation today regarding this subject, they could cite that. The fact that they don't, and clearly say the origin is unclear, and also say that statements regarding the ban were made in the absence of direct revelation does not make them look good at all.

This quote comes from the preface to OD2. The following quote is from an official statement made by the church. There has been considerable debate here regarding whether or not this band was instituted of God. The plain and simple fact is the church makes NO claims that there was any revelation or direction from God to institute the ban on priesthood. What they do say clearly is that people who explained why there was a ban, Brigham Young and others, made statements in direct absence of revelation. In other words, even though BY spoke authoritatively, he was wrong. He led the saints astray in this instance. He spoke in absence of direct revelation and did not represent the actual doctrine of the church. Since we believe in modern revelation, we can expect that if there was any such direction from God to keep the priesthood from blacks, they would say so plainly. Interestingly, official sources remain unclear at best on the origins of this ban. Yet, they are very clear that the ban was not from God, statements in regards to the ban were made in the direct absence of any revelation, which means Brigham Young was wrong. The official statements are so clear as to preclude any other viewpoint on this matter. The problem that arises from the recent official statements, is that we may never know when in the future a similar statement will be made by current church leaders regarding our time. Will some future leader of the church claim today's leaders have made statements in absence of direct revelation? I guess the whole idea that the prophet will never lead you astray is not as firm of a doctrine as we may think. In fact, I can find nothing in the scriptures that supports this doctrine, but there are plenty that say otherwise. I'm not saying these scriptures apply to us today, but I use them to illustrate that there is scriptural precedent that calls to question the idea that the prophet cannot lead you astray. Certainly the church feels Brigham Young led the saints astray in regards to blacks and the priesthood, or they would not have made such a clear statement in regards to such.

Wow, your post is fantastic. I read this and felt the truth and power of these scriptures. Thank you!

I think the question answered in the OP is easily answered. We are in a state of apostasy if we do not have a direct connection to heaven. Mormon said that when we have faith, angels "appear" and minister to us. Joseph stated that, "For where faith is, there will the knowledge of God be also, with all things which pertain thereto — revelations, visions, and dreams, as well as every necessary thing, in order that the possessors of faith may be perfected, and obtain salvation;" In other words, when we have faith, the fruit of that faith is indicated by revelations, visions, dreams, and angels that "appear" and minister to us. These things are necessary. If we do not see these things, we are in a state of apostasy. We sing in our hymns, "The visions and blessings of old are returning and angels are coming to visit the earth." Are these experiences ours? We cannot ride into heaven on the coat tails of other people's experiences. Each of us must come to know God for ourselves. The experiences and faith of others does not save us. D&C 131:6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. In order to be saved, we must receive knowledge. In the scriptures we read this. "for there is a great difference between believing in God and knowing him—knowledge implies more than faith." When we have faith, we receive the knowledge of God. This comes in the form described above. If we have not faith, we are in a state of apostasy.

Alma 13:1-9 speaks of those who were ordained high priests prior to the foundation of the world. This on account of their exceeding faith and good works. Abraham 3 speaks of the noble and great ones. The Savior said to them, "we" will go down and we will take of these materials and make an earth where upon "these" may dwell. And "we" will prove "them..." So, Abraham 3 speaks of those who are proving, and those who are being proven. In Joseph Smith's last public address at the temple grove, he speaks of those who have been exalted to Gods prior to the foundation of the world. All of these scriptures speak of various levels of progression attained prior to arriving here on this earth. Yet, when we come here, we all are covered in a veil of flesh. Unless it has been revealed to you from the heavens, you probably don't know who you are yet. We are all basically in the same situation here in this earth and any one of us can fail. We certainly cannot judge anyone else or their progression based on their status in this life. Only God knows why we were sent where we are here. I have seen angels born into extremely difficult circumstances, precisely because of their exalted status. The Savior was born in lowly circumstances. It might be good to ponder His example and what we can learn from it.

Thanks for your response. It gives me some stuff to think about. However, I keep getting back to a point that I should have made clearer from the get go. If the prophet can't lead us astray, why is there a procedure to remove him at all? I mean, if it were not possible for him to lead us astray, then really, there shouldn't be a requirement to have those verses in section 107. Or are they just a token few verses, that really don't apply, but are in there to give an appearance of equal justice? Also, one other point you made about Charles Nibley caused me to reflect a bit. What if he were asleep at the wheel so to speak? What if his sensitivity to the Spirit was dampened, or even better, what if he were so convinced that the prophet couldn't lead us astray, Nibley considered his actions were justified in having the canonized scripture removed. If he were convinced that the prophet couldn't lead us astray, don't you think he wouldn't be apt to question such a dramatic action? Would anyone say anything if it were decided that the book of Abraham will now be removed from canonized scripture and the Pearl of Great Price? It seems like that it is an awful lot of responsibility to put on a single man to keep watch. Which gets me thinking of this scripture from D&C 101. So, who's at fault here? Should the trees be at fault for being cut down? Who are the servants that were commanded to set watch? Who is the watchman that was supposed to be set upon the tower? I realize I asked a bunch of questions. Honestly, I'd be happy to hear an answer about my first one about the necessity of having a procedure to remove the president of the high priesthood. Thanks again for corresponding so nicely!

Thanks! I knew I skimmed through this thread too quickly. I looked at the first page and the last few, but missed that one. I must admit though, I am still a bit surprised at the cursory treatment that scripture was given. I sustain our leaders, yet I do not presume that they would be infallible. I don't think they would want us to think that either, that's an awful lot of pressure we put on their shoulders. I think it's clear from the scripture in D&C 107:82-84, that it must be possible for the president of the high priesthood to fall or stumble. But, where does that leave us if we feel he could never led us astray? Would we recognize it if he did? I often wonder if the Nephites or Jaredites felt they could never be led astray. Do we think we are better than they were? Christ personally ordained twelve disciples and thousands were witness of His resurrection. Yet, within 200 years, they began to fall away. What about the removal of the Lectures on Faith? Would removal of canonized scripture without the common consent of the church be grounds to enact the procedures in D&C 107? I simply bring up this scripture because I think the "attitude" that we can't be led astray is extremely dangerous. I believe it was this same attitude that allowed the Nephites to gradually fall away. The Children of Israel had the priesthood from Moses unto Christ. They didn't understand it, but they had authority to build a temple and perform ordinances. Yet, they still dwindled in unbelief. I think an attitude of humble repentance is far more likely to keep us on the straight and narrow path. I worry about pride. I see the dangers of it in the Book of Mormon. I think we are just as prone to error as any of God's people in the past.

I'll admit I haven't read through all of the pages, but I was surprised that no one brought up this scripture from D&C 107 on the parts of the discussion I did read through. Not only should we be able to recognize if the prophet tries to lead us astray, it is our duty to see that he would be held in common council of the church. Thus, NONE shall be exempted from the justice and laws of God. And of course, that would also mean that NONE of us, right up to the president of the high priesthood, is exempt from going astray. We are men. We are all capable of error.