Omergideon

I was at a missionary Conference many years ago lead by then Elder Oaks, and he said something very similar to that. One of the missionaries asked a question specific to one of the people they were teaching and he said something like "Elder I am a General Authority for the Church and can give General counsel. You are the specific authority for your investigators so you are the one who gets that specific counsel, not me" It was the most important lesson I took away from the Conference.

In terms of "escape"........ it is an intentionally dramatic term and frankly I think gives the wrong impression. You are not trapped in any physical sense in the Church. If you want to leave on a simple practical level you can just stop going, send 1 letter to the Bishop asking them to not send anyone around (or remove your name if you genuinely want to) and perhaps a follow up and it is done. On that practical level saying you escaped feels...... well we probably wanted you to stay and some people will have tried to persuade you but you were not truly trapped. On a cultural level, it can be very hard for a person to completely overhaul or change their life. I have no plan to leave the Church (I am persuaded it is true for one thing) but even on a basic level I would feel..... kind of adrift on a Sunday without church to go to. I would lose some of my social interactions. I would lose a fairly hefty chunk of my identity. Leaving all of that behind may not be physically difficult but emotionally you bet it can be. And if you have close friends or family who are part of the Church then there can be a lot of pressure to stay and conform (whether intended or not) and telling them you no longer believe is going to be hard. I think escape is the wrong term, but it will be true that it can be a tough thing to do. And on a personal note, I would say 2 things. First, if you have tried and genuinely do not believe it is true, or genuinely believe the Church is fundamentally wrong, then I think you probably should leave. Don't pretend as that will just do you harm. And if you want to explain to people why you disbelieve then of course that is your right. I only genuinely dislike the critics who are dishonest about the Church, such as clipping 2 seconds from a 20 minute talk to make a leader look bad (as one example, I saw a critic post a quote from Elder Scott that tried to imply he blamed people for being abused...... even the worst faith reading of the whole talk shows that is not true as the talk is replete with comments about how the abused has done nothing wrong and should not feel guilt etc). So long as you are honest we can have a productive conversation (I get as frustrated with Evangelical types who try to tell me what I believe, such as someone saying we earn our way into Heaven, as that is again often bad faith). As a sub item to the above, don't accuse me of being brainwashed or some nonsense. I know why I believe what I do, you don't. But for the second thing, I dislike the term "cult" or the modern variant "high-demand religion". Both are just code terms for saying "religion I do not like, but also it's bad". It is not a useful term at all. We are a religion like many others. People who use the term cult to describe us usually do so in bad faith. The term cult is just a pejorative without any meaningful content except as a cudgel to say "boooooo" at a religion.

It is always worth considering that the time gap between Abraham and Joseph, whilst only 3 generations (Abraham to Isaac, to Jacob, to Joseph), is not a short period at all. Abraham visited Egypt relatively early in his reported 120+ year lifespan, Isaac was not supposed to be especially young when Jacob was born and Joseph was the second youngest of his sons, and at least some 20 years pass between Jacob's adulthood and Joseph going into Egypt (14 years working for Laban and then some). The Pharoah at the time of Joseph would be well over a century removed from Abraham's time. Just looking at some dates suggested for all of this (and frankly we don't know when it all happened all too well) there could be 2 or 3 whole Dynasties between the 2 Pharaohs with almost no actual family relation at all (Each Dynasty tends to make it a century or so) or them even coming from functionally different ethnic groups.

This is to my reading something where you can (as with many scriptures) read it in more than one way. So I look at this and it comes across to me more like "God doesn't care about the passage of time and years and so on the way you do, or the mechanics of things like who rises from the dead first....... it does not matter to him" moreso than some statement that God is somehow immune to or unaffected by the passage of time. I could be off base, and now you say it I recall a number of, to me, poetic passages such as "1000 years is as a day and a day as 1000 years to The Lord". But they do not speak to me of some commentary on the nature of ontology. more that how God thinks about time (as an eternal and immortal being) is not the same way that we do. I mean I know as a nearly 40 year old man now I think of an hour in a very different way to how I did as a child. Or even that my mood affects how it feels or affects me. 20 minutes on my lunch break at work evaporates, but 20 minutes on the treadmill feel like an endless torment. So I would potentially Paraphrase Alma as saying "whether it is in one group, or this lot first doesn't matter. God is in no rush and he'll get it done when he gets it done"

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.