BJ64

A question that might be asked is do boys really get turned on by seeing a girl’s shoulder? As for myself a woman’s shoulder is no more alluring then her elbow.

What bothers me most is speculative comments. We aren’t to have speculation in a class discussion. An example of teaching a gospel misunderstanding is when in my son's Aaronic Priesthood quorum the instructor said that it’s okay to drink coffee as long as it’s not too hot. My son recognized that it was a false statement but I was left wondering why a member of the bishopric or another adult adviser did not correct the teaching.

It has been my observation that there are many members of the church who have very little knowledge of the gospel. Many of them I don’t think could teach a primary class without teaching false doctrine. I have to cringe sometimes at the comments made in Sunday school. However rarely is there anyone bold enough to correct miss statements. I think many members get there gospel knowledge only from what they hear at church and their once or twice a year scripture reading.

You are right. I believe Brigham Young was/is a prophet called and directed by God. I also believe he understood the reason for the ban. On the topic of revelation it would be good to know what qualifies as a revelation to the prophet for the church. Is it a vision or hearing the voice of The Lord or is it a spiritual prompting or merely feeling good about something? In the days of Joseph Smith when he had a question he would ask then receive a revelation which would then be recorded to become the Doctrine and Covenants. However not all of his revelations were published, such as those dealing with plural marriage, and I suspect not all of his questions were answered by revelation. I feel that The Lord does not micro manage His Church. I feel He calls wise men whom He allows to direct His church, giving direction and guidance through spiritual promptings or whatever when necessary. Joseph Smith once said that he taught the members correct principles and then let them govern themselves. I suspect The Lord acts in a similar manner.

disavow [dis-uh-vou] verb (used with object) to disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for; disown; repudiate: He disavowed the remark that had been attributed to him. disavow US to say that you know nothing about or have no responsibility for something: He disavowed his earlier confession to the police. Definition of disavow transitive verb 1: to deny responsibility for : repudiate disavowed the actions of his subordinates 2: to refuse to acknowledge or accept : disclaim party leaders disavowed him

dis·a·vow ˌdisəˈvou/ verb deny any responsibility or support for. "he appears to be in denial of his own past, which he continually disavows" synonyms: deny, disclaim, disown, wash one's hands of, repudiate, reject, renounce "the chairman disavowed the press release"

I want to say again that I don’t think the church is lying. I only brought up that the theories that were disavowed were the same as the justification Brigham Young gave for the ban. Therefore if the theories were disavowed then any doctrine connected to them was also disavowed and of course the essay says that none of the theories is accepted as doctrine today. I will now remain silent on the topic so that no one will misunderstand anything I might say as being a criticism of the church.

I don’t think they are lying. I think they are trying to put the best possible face on a tricky piece of church history.

Yes, they are exactly the reasons which have been disavowed. Most of the “theories” originated from his teachings. While his teachings on the topic are not important for our day, you can search and see exactly what his professed view was. I started reading The Discourses of Brigham Young recently but stopped because I found very little that had application for our day. Hence we have a living prophet from whom we may receive guidance.

Oh! Was this conversation about a flood?😀

Nor did I. In fact I believe it was of God for the very reasons which Brigham Young expounded upon.

Brigham Young made it clear why the ban was imposed and his teachings on the subject were taught as though it was doctrine, whether or not it was, for 130 years. It’s his reasons that have been disavowed by the Church.

Bruce R. McConkie said this. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limitedunderstanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

When I read Brigham Young’s discourses on the subject of the blacks and the priesthood I get a distinct impression that the doctrinal basis for a ban was clear in his mind. I won’t ask anyone to accept my opinions of his discourses but anyone can read what he said and get their own impressions. Again whether the ban was doctrinal or not and I think the essay leads one to believe it was not, makes no difference because we are told to forget anything Brigham Young said on the issue. We are to accept what our modern prophets have told us. I would include the essay race and the priesthood which surely must have been given their approval.

If you want to know if the doctrinal reason for the ban on the priesthood it only takes a few seconds of searching to find countless quotes from prophets and apostles on the doctrinal reasons for the ban. The reasons for the band were preach from the pulpit for 130 years. However none of that matters anymore because in the words of Bruce R. McConkie “There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

I believe my understanding of If I am misunderstanding it’s intended meaning then so are many others.the essay Race and the Priesthood reflect what the church intends people to understand from the essay. If I am misunderstanding it’s intended meaning then so are many others misunderstanding it. I found this Washington Post article just this morning that was written when the essay was released. The writer of the article got the same understanding from the essay as I got from it. I am not alone in my understanding of the essay. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/mormon-church-justifications-for-black-priesthood-ban-rooted-in-racism/2013/12/10/1a142f10-61e2-11e3-a7b4-4a75ebc432ab_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5e37487f830b

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue forthe legalization of black “servitude” in theTerritory of Utah.  There it is again. The ban was justified by the same racial ideas and attitudes that also justified slavery. Nowhere in the essay does it say that there was any doctrinal reason for the ban nor does it say that to quote the essay is engaging in speculation.

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church. Here it is again. No accepted doctrinal reason for the ban. My initial statement saying that the church has essentially said there was no doctrinal reason for the ban is in part based on this very statement.

I think you need to read it again.

Where is that recorded? However I have not speculated on the reason for the ban. I have referenced the essay in saying that there is no accepted doctrinal reason for the ban and that it came about as a result of the racial and cultural attitudes of the day.

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church. The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained. The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings. Soon after the revelation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.” Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons” and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous--regardless of race --is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” Well, that pretty much sums up what I was saying that there is no accepted doctrinal reason for the ban. It was a product of the racial and cultural attitudes af the day and like I also said I believe the Lord did not inspire leaders to lift the ban until much of that racial unrest had been settled. You may have been the first person on earth to have read the essay but I have studied it extensively and nearly have it memorized.

You may not have speculated, but the whole thread is filled with speculation on the flood.

Says a man who is involved in a thread which is speculation on how the flood may have occurred.

Go read the gospel topic essay Race and the Priesthood.

I think a lot of church leaders make statements based on their own assumptions which are not necessarily doctrinal. Even Bruce R. McConkie made a statement saying to forget what he had said on a certain topic because new revelation had been given he had been wrong.