MrShorty

Chapters 1 and 2: Basically documenting a few examples (including well known examples like Elijah Able) of early black converts. Chapter 1 covers free black converts  from the northern US, and chapter 2 covers enslaved black converts (with passing mention of enslavers) from the southern US. The basic idea behind these first chapters is to show that,
 

I'm not sure of the exact provenance of the account (I've tracked it back to an early Mormon Stories episode 271-274 while it was still nuanced rather than just anti) of Dr. Dan Petersen who served on the curriculum committee for a while. As a joke, he suggested this passage with discussion questions like, "Have you ever killed anyone with a Sacrament meeting speech? What could you do better in the future to avoid this?" The story goes that it made it past correlation and into the final proof gallies. When Dr. Petersen saw the galley proofs, he called someone up and suggested that part be taken out.

Introduction
Most of the introduction is anecdotes involving a Ritchie family. The "patriarch" of the family, Nelson, is mixed race born into slavery. He escapes slavery, marries a white woman, becomes a businessman/hotel owner, and joins the church. Reeves describes how various members of the Ritchie family, including the patriarch himself, received priesthood and temple blessings well before 1978.
Reeves also explains that he is going to approach this history in 3 phases. Phase 1 he describes as the early years of the restoration when priesthood and temple blessings were available to all. Phase 2 is the period where the priesthood and temple ban is implemented "in fits and starts" until 1978. Phase 3 is the period after the revelation in 1978 which Reeves describes as a return to the original idea of universal access to these blessings for all.

Hope you enjoy the book my friend. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. 

I just got a copy of Let's Talk About Race and the Priesthood by Paul Reeves (library ebook), and will be starting to read it. I'm expecting that this will be a difficult slog, even if it will be a relatively short book, and wanted to have a place to share some thoughts as I go through the book.
I'm not going into this entirely blind. I have read Reeves' previous book, Religion of a Different Color. I have also listened to a few podcasts that Reeve did when this book was first published by Deseret Book.
At present, I have read the disclaimer -- The views expressed are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or Deseret Book. I have also read the forward by Darius Gray, which was well done and provides a compelling start from someone who joined the church in spite of the restriction and has a powerful view of this issue.
Doesn't it give you nice warm fuzzy feelings to think that I chose ThirdHour for this?

Not sure either way.  But Im currently leaning toward Christ creating the Universe as we know it.
The temple narrative and slide show led me to this conclusion.
Our sun is metal rich thus at least a 2nd generation, possibly 3rd generation star.  It takes alot of organization to create a planet with materials like Gold and Uranium.
 

Agreed.
Moses 1:33-35 seems to contradict this - unless one wants to suggest that God was only referring to worlds outside this universe.

"The Word" is translated from the Greek "ho Logos."  While "The Word" is a valid translation, there is something about the term being coupled with "in the beginning" that emotes a different meaning.  The Greeks believed that before Chaos and Eros created Gaia, there was an underlying principle/framework of logic (derived from "logos") that governed all of creation. 
This principle of logic was what ensured that there were laws and rules by which all of existence was predicated.  Without those rules, there would be no predictable future. No other principles would even exist.  Therefore, there would be no right or wrong, no good or evil, no happiness or misery...
Jesus is "The Logos" because His Atonement is what guarantees the rules of the universe continue to be obeyed.
The beginning that is being discussed in Genesis is the same beginning as in John.  It is a beginning.  It is the beginning of the mortal existence of the universe with which we've become familiar,

I think it was @Traveler who once asked here the question, "beginning of what?" and suggested it was the beginning of a covenant.  I like that answer.  I've pondered this phrase when I read it.  I think there are multiple correct interpretations and one of those is about the beginning of this earth (or the process that led inevitably to it).  In Moses 1:33-35 we learn that God has created worlds without number, by the Son, and that some had passed away and others still stood (as of the time Moses was learning these things).  Therefore, "in the beginning" doesn't appear to be the beginning of everything - that is, the creation of this earth wasn't first.
At some point, I discovered that one of the creation stories tells something different at the start, about the beginning.  Today, while looking up references, I re-discovered this.  I thought I would share and see if others have additional thoughts.
NOTE: All three accounts go to the same place in verse 2, so it's only verse 1 I'm comparing.
Abraham sure makes it sound like "the beginning of this earth".  Regardless, neither expounds on "the beginning".  Now look at Moses 2...
OK, one is capitalized and one isn't, but I don't think the dual use of "beginning" is only a fluke here.  I think we could say that all things were first created in the mind of God - in him - indeed, how could it be otherwise?  Perhaps then they were created in the mind of Christ (and the Holy Ghost?).  And this then leads me to ponder these (and similar) verses:
...and...
I don't want to suggest some weird mysticism, and I can't put into words the notions these things create in my head, but there's a clear degree of unity or oneness here beyond what normal words suggest.  I mean, that D&C passage is both simple and incomprehensible at the same time.
Whatever the case, I'm thinking the first Beginning is God's mind, then a covenant, then a spiritual creation, then a physical creation - at least four beginnings.
If you were expecting me to expound and draw a nice conclusion, sorry to disappoint you.  All I have at this point are ponderings.  I welcome any additional ideas to ponder.

Apologies for having been away for a few months. I am back--and back to my original calling. Many of you know that I retired from federal prison chaplaincy in December 2022. For the past two years I've taught secondary Bible and US History at a local Christian school. Beginning a few months ago I sensed God drawing me back to chaplaincy. I checked with the state DOC (WA), and there was a position at the women's facility. God opened the door, and I start full-time, beginning tomorrow. So prisonchaplain is a prison chaplain again! 🙂  I figured that this was also a good time for me to return to thirdhour.org, say hello to old friends, and perhaps even make a few new ones. -- PC

Yep, Asimov was my marijuana, gateway to the crystal meth that is Dune.
 

At the risk of derailing something, I recently decided to revisit another old sci-fi favorite of mine -- Asimov's Foundation series. In getting started, I found something at Wikipedia written by a Tim O'Reilly that claims, "Dune is clearly a commentary on the Foundation trilogy. Herbert has taken a look at the same imaginative situation that provoked Asimov's classic—the decay of a galactic empire—and restated it in a way that draws on different assumptions and suggests radically different conclusions. The twist he has introduced into Dune is that the Mule, not the Foundation, is his hero."
Just thought this an interesting way that a couple of my favorite old sci-fi classics are linked.
Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series

At the risk of derailing something, I recently decided to revisit another old sci-fi favorite of mine -- Asimov's Foundation series. In getting started, I found something at Wikipedia written by a Tim O'Reilly that claims, "Dune is clearly a commentary on the Foundation trilogy. Herbert has taken a look at the same imaginative situation that provoked Asimov's classic—the decay of a galactic empire—and restated it in a way that draws on different assumptions and suggests radically different conclusions. The twist he has introduced into Dune is that the Mule, not the Foundation, is his hero."
Just thought this an interesting way that a couple of my favorite old sci-fi classics are linked.
Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series

At the risk of derailing something, I recently decided to revisit another old sci-fi favorite of mine -- Asimov's Foundation series. In getting started, I found something at Wikipedia written by a Tim O'Reilly that claims, "Dune is clearly a commentary on the Foundation trilogy. Herbert has taken a look at the same imaginative situation that provoked Asimov's classic—the decay of a galactic empire—and restated it in a way that draws on different assumptions and suggests radically different conclusions. The twist he has introduced into Dune is that the Mule, not the Foundation, is his hero."
Just thought this an interesting way that a couple of my favorite old sci-fi classics are linked.
Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series

https://trackbill.com/bill/california-senate-bill-729-health-care-coverage-treatment-for-infertility-and-fertility-services/2373757/
The language of the bill simply states that insurance companies are required to cover surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization as fertility treatments for gay couples.  Because of the language regarding surrogacy, this has a disturbing implication.  A woman who "offers services" as a surrogate will now be required to offer those services indiscriminately.
IOW, this has the potential for surrogate mothers to be forced into renting out their wombs.  And the left thinks that Christians are closer to Gilead than LGBT?
It was really hard to find statistics on surrogacy.  They list a whole bunch of numbers that can't be used for meaningful calculation.  I could not find out how many surrogates are commercial (someone who decides to do this professionally, gets paid) vs. personal (i.e. a friend or family member who was willing to help out.)
One thing is for certain, when insurance is forced into covering something, either the costs go way up, or people have to be forced into doing something against their will.

Just a funny aside.  My brain did an inexcusable cross-reference.
"pedo" is the Spanish word for breaking wind.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/18/pupil-teacher-despicable-identifying-cat-transgender/
People said this was ridiculous only a year ago.  "Oh that would never happen.  That's just a slippery slope fallacy.  You're over-reacting."
It's happening.
I had mentioned that people are going to "identify" as a minor so they can commit pedophilia.  But, oh, that would never happen.  I'm just over-reacting.  Slippery slope fallacy...
Uh-huh.

I think that one potential obstacle the vellum hyphothesis would have to deal with is the fossil record. If previous versions of humanity were of a similar quality to the existing version then I suspect we would have found more evidence of them, either in the form of skeletons or artefacts. Even an event as cataclysmic as the Chicxulub impact left behind plenty of evidence of the life forms that preceded it.
A second potential obstacle, and I admit, this sounds a bit strange, is the possible lack of space when the Earth is in its celestial state. If the Earth is our eternal home after this life for all who have ever lived on it, and if the current version of humanity is just one of many versions of all who have lived on Earth, it could become quite crowded if we are all living in the same space at the same time.

I have an idea about how God has used the earth for his eternal purposes. It has been kicking around my skull for a few decades now. I am absolutely sure it's not original with me; doubtless I have heard others suggest such ideas and have simply been thinking about their ideas since then. This qualifies as speculation, and I certainly don't pretend it's some sort of revealed truth. Just an idea. But I find it intriguing and somewhat plausible, so I want to run it by those on this august forum and see what you think. For lack of a better term, I'll call it the Vellum Hypothesis.
First, a quick explanatory note: Vellum is calfskin used for writing on. In ancient times, writing media were expensive and laboriously produced. For example, papyrus was local to Egypt and not typically of great quality. Many ancient scribes preferred to write on vellum, where possible. Still, at one calf sacrifice per five or so vellum folios, it was not a cheap method of mass production.
If a vellum folio had been previously written on and it was decided that it should be repurposed to use to write something more important (or more urgent) on, the old writing would be scraped off the folio. The piece of vellum would then be available to write something else on. In this case, the previously used vellum was called a palimpsest. Interestingly, the old writing would not be completely removed; faint traces of the writing would often still be present on the palimpsest. Today, we can use ancient palimpsests to read not only what is written on them, but what was written on them before they were reused. For example, study of the Archimedes Palimpsest has recovered heretofore unknown treatises by Archimedes.
We can profitably view nature itself, the birds and bees and bugs and especially the microflora, microfauna, and physical structure of the earth (air, water, land masses, etc.) as the canvas upon which we, as works of God, are painted. We have existence outside of this physical reality, but we exist for now within this reality and are defined by it. Take away the atmosphere, water, and/or microflora that surround and permeate us, and we cannot survive, any more than a Rembrandt portrait can survive being peeled off of its canvas.
What I have termed the Vellum Hypothesis is the idea that this mother earth we live upon is a vellum on which we have been written. But this earthly vellum is actually a palimpsest, having hosted many forms of life for millions, or more likely billions, of years before we ever arrived. We have had many "scraping the old ink off" events, such as the Chicxulub impact 67 million years ago that wiped out pretty much all of the dinosaurs, along with about 80% of all species then alive. The so-called Snowball Earth events, vastly older than the Chicxulub impact, probably had similar or perhaps much harsher effects. Even in relatively recent times, the last two or three million years, there have been ice ages that wiped out much life and greatly modified our physical environment.
I know of no evidence of pre-human human-like intelligence. But humans appear to have been around for quite a while. We do not know exactly when Adam and Eve lived, but the normal Bible-based chronology (both Christian and Jewish) puts them more or less at around 4000 BC. I think that number can be considered variable, but I doubt there would be many Bible believers who would suggest that Adam and Eve lived much more than, say, 10,000 years ago. Interestingly, this coincides with the approximate end of the most recent ice age. Yet it appears than anatomically modern humans have been around for maybe as long as 200,000 years.
I wonder if the Lord has used this earth more than just for Adam's generation. I wonder if, perhaps, previous people, children of God much like ourselves, populated this planet. I wonder if our own genetic makeup demonstrates the palimpsest of our biological ancestry and our descendance from them. If so, we are apparently sealed off from previous iterations of human activity, and in any case we have our own problems to worry about. But it makes for some fun stuff to think about. As I said, nothing really original, except maybe the fanciful name I gave it.
I put this thread in "LDS Gospel Discussion" because most of us are LDS and this is meant to be a discussion. But for the record, nothing about what I wrote above qualifies as LDS gospel doctrine. Just so that we're clear on that matter.

Mr. Rogers is my only mortal hero.   He deserves to be boosted to the top of all the viral playlists.

So, I think we should love all our neighbors and relatives.  That doesn't mean we support behavior we do not feel is appropriate, but we should love them as they are, whether they choose to do the things we would agree with or not. 
Sort of on topic, and sort of off.  This is from someone who was NOT a member of our church, but some consider a rather religious individual.
Mr Rogers I like you as you are
and a second video that may be more accessible...
It's you I like
Edit:  And one last one...because I think this is something that the Lord would want us each to know, that each of us is Loved individually by him, each of us is important to him...not matter who we are and what we choose, we are STILL loved.
Mr Rogers sings you are special

It may have just been those who actually remain transitioned as adults but the study did say that so much of what qualifies as transitioning is subjective that different studies can produce different results. I read somewhere else of a phenomenon they are seeing, especially among young women, where when one comes out as being transgender one or two close acquaintances on average come out as well and they aren't sure how much of that is legitimate verses just wanting to be part of the in thing or even just the unsureness that teens often feel about themselves. But my main point was that the number is very small, regardless. That's not to say it couldn't be part of what Isaiah is talking about though. And we don't know how far this is going to go in society either. 

I found this Wikipedia page describing Og and his place in the Old Testament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Og%2C_King_of_Bashan  It does not mention any "recently released" (or other) records claimed to be written by Og. Do you have a reference describing them?
As for how it applies to your faith, I don't know if I can say. LDS consider the OT, NT, BoM, D&C, and PoGP as the only canonized scripture. As far as I know, nothing written by Og is included in that scripture canon, so I don't know if I would consider anything written by Og to have any application to my faith at all. It might be interesting to see what Og had to say about his life and how that compares to the Israelite account of him, but I don't know that that comparison would be enough to give his writings any application to my faith.

Yes, words have meaning. What condition did the murderous farmer meet to merit rain on his crops? I would say that’s unconditional. Elder Nelson prefers the term universal, but I would say it’s universal because it is without conditions. If we create a formal love theology around this talk then we can formalize using universal in lieu of unconditional, but in casual conversation and discussions the two are synonyms.
By all means, remind the saints that there’s more to God’s love than just the unconditional but don’t go overboard and deny that it even exists.

I did read it. My point is that I think it's counterproductive to argue against terminology because not everyone interprets things the same. I can show talks from other general authorities who have referenced unconditional love.  Likewise, I don't find Divine Love in the scriptures either. Rather, a better tactic is to focus on understanding doctrine, using whatever terminology helps people understand.  If they like the phrase unconditional love, help them to define it in a way that more perfectly teaches the doctrine.