• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Timpman's Achievements

  1. I'm pretty sure nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls are "records of the Lost Tribes of Israel."
  2. Traveler, your reasoning is not silly. I respect it.
  3. This is a question that I wonder about quite a lot. There are many scriptures telling us to ask God for things. It seems that asking must be a factor in whether God intervenes in our lives at least sometimes. Here's some good stuff to consider:
  4. I see what you mean. He could mean "Some people turned out to be spectacularly wrong" or "The reasons some people put forth turned out to be spectacularly wrong." Well, if the people were wrong, then they were wrong about the reasons set forth. If the reasons were wrong, then the people were wrong when they promulgated them. It really doesn't make a difference. Anyway, he was very clear when he said, "I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon...by others." Any way it's spun, he said the reasons were wrong. I didn’t disavow the descriptions by Elder Oaks (see post #111 on page 6 of that other thread). Please don’t ascribe things to me when I didn’t really say it. Anyway, my opinion on the ban can't negate what Elder Oaks said about the reasons behind the ban.
  5. Love before repentance makes sense to me. Jesus also said “love your enemies.” I don’t know of any scriptures rescinding those statements. However, I wouldn’t subscribe to “love instead of repentance.” When the Lord instructs his servants to cry repentance to the people, I think it’s implied that love is a part of that.
  6. Is there anything in my post with which you disagree? Do you disagree with the statement by Elder Oaks? Would you like to discuss it respectfully?
  7. The author's comment regarding an absence of revelation makes sense to me if he means no revelation was given regarding why the priesthood ban was in place. Consider this: Elder Oaks didn’t say “I don’t know if the theories behind the ban were right or wrong." He said “they turned out to be spectacularly wrong” and verified he was “referring to reasons given by general authorities.” It would be problematic for an apostle to say a revelation was wrong, so I’m not concerned about the author of the blog making that statement. If the author is not referring only to the theories regarding the priesthood ban, then please ignore the above :)
  8. No, that's not what I was thinking. I'm tired of being accused of thinking or saying things. It's not just you, TPF. Vort, I'm sorry you didn't like my tone. I tried to be respectful. I think part of the problem is how you sometimes perceived my tone. Well, this is my last post. Good bye :)
  9. Vort, I didn’t try to convey that was presenting official Church teachings. I was very clear that I was just giving my opinion. I didn’t “bait-and-switch” or make “an attempt at redirection” on purpose. Relax, dude. Do I really need to quote from your extensive participation on this thread to demonstrate that you most certainly were trying to convince others to accept your argumentation? Did you overlook all the times JAG asked me about my opinion on the ban? I didn’t want to discuss it, but he persisted and posted a link to what I said in 2013 so I decided to write my opinion. Yes, I was totally “trying to convince others” when we were talking about the disavowed theories related to the ban, but I was not doing so when I wrote my opinion on the ban itself.
  10. I’ll reply to some things, but not all. I don’t want to spend the whole day on this. Even if my opinion on the ban is totally wrong, or if I didn’t have an explanation at all, I could stand by what I have written regarding the disavowed theories. I admit the statement by Elder Oaks is a conundrum to me. I am not married to my opinion. I can see how God may have said something like, “I don’t want this, but do what you will and suffer the consequences,” similar to the story in 1 Samuel 8. I guess that would technically be a revelation. This is a good point. I don’t expect a written revelation to be provided. If there was one, it would be nice to hear something about it. It appears that’s the basis for saying “From the dispensation of Adam until the dispensation of the fulness of times, there has been a group of people who have not been allowed to hold the priesthood of God” in general. Those verses say nothing about black/African people in the 19th and 20th centuries. They refer to “the curse” and the theory “that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse” is disavowed. I didn’t say I know why the priesthood ban was instigated. I presented my opinion on it. That’s very different. So let’s say God did take ownership of the policy in the late 60s. I am saying perhaps people at that very time “needed to see the negative consequences of the ban in order to learn to root out those prejudices and be willing to accept a lift on the ban.” I didn’t mean to stress that God may have been punishing people. I wanted to convey that people needed to learn a lesson. And I didn’t say “white people.” :)
  11. I may be misunderstanding, but I am sensing hostility from you. Are you saying Elder Oaks was wrong when he said, “Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong…I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon…by others…The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent.”? Was Elder Holland wrong when he said, “All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong.” Your opinion has been noted. I would say more if you weren’t so darn rude J I have authority to speak for myself and that’s all I did.
  12. Thanks for the reply, Folk Prophet. I respect your view as stated there. Vort, can you point out anything in my post that contradicts current, official teachings?
  13. Perhaps the "too many members of my Church have deep-seated racial prejudices" needed to see the negative consequences of the ban in order to learn to root out those prejudices and be willing to accept a lift on the ban. Here are some examples of the negative consequences, as related by Edward Kimball:
  14. I was ignoring questions about the priesthood ban and I was going to say so. I just didn’t want to promulgate my opinion on it and argue with anyone, but I’ll address it since my writings from 2013 are already out in the open. First, I’ll answer to this: I posted the quotes by Elders Oaks and Holland to provide examples of apostles saying general authorities can be wrong. Just_A_Guy then asked, “which of the concepts I mentioned in my post 36 to this thread have been affirmatively and specifically condemned…?” My reply was, “The disavowed theories are as good as folklore…I don't insist that theories be ‘affirmatively and specifically condemned.’ What the General Authorities say today is enough for me.” I didn’t make myself clear at that time, but I was thinking specifically of the Race and the Priesthood essay when I wrote today. Still, I have to acknowledge what Elder Oaks said. He clearly referred to the priesthood ban as a revelation and/or commandment during an interview in 1988. Well, I think he was working under an assumption then and that assumption is not supported today. I still believe the what Elders Oaks and Holland said about the explanations for the ban. Things in this post will point to why I do. So, was there a revelation from God instituting the priesthood ban? Brigham Young didn’t mention a revelation. A Church statement says, “For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.” FairMormon doesn’t try to argue that there was a revelation. It says: If a revelation occurred, it would be one of the most important things to include in the Race and Priesthood essay, but it doesn’t even hint that there might have been one. The essay states, “In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Edward L. Kimball’s paper “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood” is insightful. He notes that Hugh B. Brown “urged that the priesthood restriction could be dropped as a matter of Church administrative policy without requiring a specific revelation. He reasoned that if the restriction had not come by revelation, it could be vacated without revelation.” The essay provides no indication that inspiration was involved. Rather, it mentions the “church being established during an era of great racial division in the United States.” It says slavery and racial prejudice “influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion.” It offers no defense or excuse for the ban. In my opinion, it implies Brigham Young was influenced by the times to implement the ban. I see nothing in it that contradicts this opinion. I have heard it argued that God must be behind the ban since He didn’t direct President McKay to lift it. I think that’s a stretch and there are other possible explanations. I imagine God’s view on the matter could have been, “Since the time the priesthood ban was instituted without my approval, various theories to support it have been promulgated. As a result, too many members of my Church have deep-seated racial prejudices and the Church is not ready for a change. They need to suffer the consequences of the ban for a bit longer so they will learn their lesson.” Edward Kimball wrote, “As the doctrinal foundations of the policy grew increasingly problematic, members focused on its social aspects. Armand Mauss, Eugene England, and Elder Marion D. Hanks, among others, hypothesized that change in the policy perhaps depended on LDS members’ willingness to accept black men and women in true fellowship.” Was the priesthood ban based on scripture? Edward Kimball wrote, “In 1954, President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change.” I don’t really understand why only Levites were made priests among the people of Israel. However, we know the priesthood was not strictly limited to Levites. Otherwise, by what authority did Lehi offer sacrifices? I also don’t really understand the situation with the Lamanite curse in the Book of Mormon. It wasn’t race-based - my children and my brother’s children are of the same race. It seems the Lamanites could repent at any time and receive the priesthood. What I do understand is that the Lord revealed to Peter that the Gospel should go to the Gentiles and any supposed discrimination by God that occurred prior to that time is irrelevant. So I give the following as my opinion: 1. The priesthood ban was not inspired by God. 2. Brigham Young instituted the ban on his own and people eventually began to assume it was based on revelation. 3. God did not intervene to prevent the ban because He sometimes allows His children (including prophets) to make mistakes (even big ones) and suffer the consequences. Other examples of God allowing bad things include divorce among the Israelites (Matthew 19:7-8), a king for Israel (1 Samuel 8), and the loss of the 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript (D&C 3). 4. When enough time had passed for most Church members to be willing to accept a change, and when all members of First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were prepared enough to receive a revelation, God granted the revelation to lift the ban. It is not my objective to loudly proclaim that Brigham Young was wrong. In my view, I am just acknowledging that he was wrong in this instance. That doesn’t mean I am encouraging anyone to doubt the prophet today. I say to myself, “At least 99% of what the prophets have taught us is true. I can accept that 1% may not be true without rejecting them outright. Jesus is still my Savior, the priesthood was restored, and this is still God’s church.” Since what I have presented here is only my opinion and I’m not trying to convince anyone to accept it, there’s no need for anyone to get upset over it. I also might not reply to any disagreements.