Omergideon

For my slightly different take on the subject, I have no issue logically with the idea of Creation Ex Nihilo, I simply do not believe it to be true based on modern revelation. As it stands, I view Free Will as something that comes with certain inherent conditions. For will to be free it must be inherently possible for a creature with free will to do evil. Even if it chooses not to do so the potential must exist by definition and default. So if God wants, for some reason, to have creatures with free will they must be able to choose evil. So even with absolute Creation Ex Nihilo, the nature of what God is (a rational being among other things) requires he allow free will and the potential for evil. The question is how much, if at all, God's omniscience and foreknowledge interfere with that. I differ from some in that I do not personally believe we have to believe God can see the future. This may seem odd, what with the existence of Prophecy and the like, but bear with me. To my eyes Prophecy in the Bible and other scripture are less predictions of the future and more statements of God's intended plan of action. So God, when he says "A virgin will conceive and bear a son" he is not predicting a future event so much as saying "at some point I will do this". Or when he prophesies about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans following Jesus' death it is not "I predict X if you do Y" and more "If you do X I will allow/cause Y to happen". But God is able to know ahead of time the actions of people surely? He knows all does he not? And yes he does. But he knows all things as they are now would be my answer. God knows everything that is, that was, and that could be. So when God tells Moses "Pharoah will harden his heart" again he is not making a prediction. He is saying in effect "Look I know Pharoah, and when you do this I know how he will reply and what it will take". So yeah.... I don't think God technically knows the future. He knows us, and how we are likely to act, and he knows what HE will plan to do and under what conditions. But this is not knowledge of future events. It is a plan. Even the book of Revelation. This is part of why I try not to look for specific signs to match prophecy. Even a prediction as specific as "2 messengers will got to Jerusalem, be killed, lie dead for 2 days and I will return them to life" is God simply outlining events and that, at some point, he will command 2 messengers to go and allow them to be killed. I would hold this even with or without Creation Ex Nihilo. But under that teaching God, wanting to create, makes beings with free will and a variety of characters. He knows some will choose to Sin, and others won't, so has the plan with Jesus and his sacrifice. And then throughout history he drops hints of the plan and instructions via prophecy. And when beings with will come into existence God does not "know" what they will do. He knows their character and personality and so acts a certain way to ensure that he does not trample on their free will, whilst still ensuring they can know about his roadmap and plan. The most direct contradiction to my conception of God and prophecy is the statements like "he knows the end from the beginning" and "all is present to the Lord". But I cannot think of a single scriptural reference that says God exists outside of time. Him knowing the end to me speaks more of him already knowing the whole plan and what he will do later to make sure..... he wins feels a crude way to say it but such is. anyway I know I am commenting on an old post but I found this interesting so wanted to get my thoughts down.

I want to echo this sentiment. Brigham was by no means a perfect man, and I am sure he would be willing to agree to that at least. He was stubborn, dedicated, could hold a grudge but when he forgave it was complete, he could be fiery and blunt in his rhetoric and could organise a group as well as anyone ever. He was a complex man with many great qualities and, as with all of us, flaws to go along with it. As for the specific incident itself, I personally do not feel troubled by it. Now I cannot say what should or should not trouble you. That is entirely a personal thing and some issues that do not even make my eyebrow twitch (say the variations in the 1st vision accounts) are devastating for others. And it is not wrong for them to feel that way. All I can do is explain why, or why not, something affects or comforts me. As a general rule I have never expected the Church, especially in general church meetings or Sunday school, to provide even a remotely comprehensive overview of church history. I always expected what we got was a highlight reel so to speak. Now the Church DID have a habit of not widely discussing some quite negative things for a while (a mistake I feel, but an understandable one) in favour of faith promoting stories and lessons that highlight Gospel principles. I understand this, and the more..... affecting historical information was always available and discussed by some. But I would no more expect, say, a General Conference talk or an institute lesson on this event than I would expect a Catholic seminary to spend any time talking about the Cathars. It is not, IMO, the Church's job to teach me much about the history outside the immediate restoration. That said, this is my own view. But it means I am not unhappy or upset if I find some reference in history that seems quite bad. I didn't expect everything to be shared, and if a story is not focused on teaching me to follow Christ or live the Gospel I see no reason to expect it to be brought up in any meeting. But as for the specifics of this event. Based on what some others have said, but focusing on just the transcript, this decision was made at the tail end of a long series of raids by a particular group of Native Americans that had resulted in much stolen property (of the near irreplaceable kind that could result in death or starvation) and them promising to continue. In this context Brigham has a duty of care to defend his people, and that includes armed resistance. Now if a group of 60 armed men are enough to stop the raids (as context implies) and at most 100 others are needed then it is unlikely a very large group. So it reads to me more like sending a local militia to deal with a violent criminal gang than an extermination as such. But based just on the minimal context I have this seems to me like a final decision to stop a group of attackers by any means necessary, and so to exterminate them. Of course the transcript from the link is a small part of the discussion but such an order does not trouble me. Basically if armed men are stealing from me, and have seemingly killed at least 2 of my people, then heading off to wipe out that group is justifiable. Harsh, but justifiable and in line with many older biblical commands to fight and kill other groups doing evil deeds. The first comparable event that springs to mind is Ammon and King Lamoni, where he killed a large number of raiders with seeming divine approval and I feel no qualms about that story. This is not to say, again, anyone else needs to feel comfortable with the decision. Or to think it is an unpleasant event. But it is not one I would be ashamed to admit to being involved in based purely on the tidbits we have here. If more information changes that context then that is fair, but as is... well I am not disturbed for the above reasons.

I am part of a small branch (30-40 each week) where we have good people but not many of them. We are all very familiar with the issue of using the same few people for assignments, talks, callings and the like. I am the Elder's Quorum President but teach Sunday School as often as not. And in my Quorum there are only a few active, available brethren who could lead the lesson and avoid it being the EQP power hour. To some extent it is natural. You need to have speakers for example and so having reliable people who are willing and able to step up is a useful thing. Brother So and So and Sister Whomever are great people and we can rely on them. So in a pinch you do. But fighting the urge and temptation is important. Making sure you take the time to specifically include people who are outside the normal list. I remember when discussing callings in a Bishopric meeting (I was Clerk then) they starting by writing up every single eligible person in the Ward. We then logically went through discussing names, pros and cons and whittling it down. And then we prayed about it and would not issue the calling unless all 5 of us felt able to support it. That was a lesson to me in how to do things. At the very least writing down EVERY name and going through them one by one was time consuming but worth it. We had to talk about every single person and it helped us avoid just the people we knew were generally helpful and willing. I won't say we ever got a thunderbolt revelation, but I did feel surprisingly strong confirmations of choices I had not been in favour of on occasions.

I agree. Especially as the second half of the quote is, to paraphrase, if we were in their situation we would be like that too. And they would be perfectly reasonable in ours. As for the topic at hand, skimming the thread it is a hard topic to truly get your head around. Understanding why God would permit, let alone require, such a rule is hard and I don't mind saying that I am uncomfortable with it having been a thing. For myself, I manage by remembering a few key points. First, whether I agree with the policy or not Brigham Young as the Prophet did have the authority to make such a declaration and have it be binding. He as President of the Church was authorised to do so. I like to think he would not do so without divine guidance but his authority was there. And once bound it would take a similar prophetic decision to unbind it. So even if Brigham made a mistake (which I do not endorse truly) once done and entrenched it would be hard to reverse. Second, Brigham young is quoted as saying that the ban was never intended to last forever so even from the start it was taught as temporary. And third, the world of the Mid 19th Century mid west is very different to mine now. Race relations were a different thing and Slavery was commonplace worldwide. The needs of the church were different. None of this makes me glad it happened, or any less glad the practice ended. I wish it had sooner. As for official discussions, the most official statement from Church Leaders I know of (First Presidency statements about the priesthood ban - FAIR) reinforces that the ban was never forever. The 1949 statement does suggest that the people affected are descendants of Cain, and does state that our pre-mortal life has something to do with it. It does not however endorse the idea that the reason for the ban was pre-mortal sin, just that our pre-mortal life affects our mortal one and that those spirits who would be born under the ban thought it was worth it to come. Even this is not definitive as to the whys. It really is for me a matter of faith. Of all the topics in church history this and Polygamy are the big ones. I am glad the ban was lifted before I was born, and I am glad that church leaders are willing to say "we don't know why it was done, but it was and we try to trust God in that". Any apologetics for the ban will feel hollow to someone hurt by it and I get that.