Has Our Church Made Mistakes?

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm going to agree with you in a different way.

I don't think the Lord is creating obstacles to prevent others from having the Gospel. That's like saying the Lord hardened Pharoah's heart.

When we read Exodus 7:13, we read:

But the JST says:

The Lord does not take away the agency of man... any man... in order to bring about His purposes. The Lord can help soften hearts, but he won't do it against one's will.

Until all leaders of the countries around the world have softened their hearts sufficiently to allow the preaching of the gospel... we will do what we can within the confines of their laws.

Otherwise, what kind of respect are we showing for their customs and laws if we circumvent them? We are a law abiding people and are honest in our dealings with our fellow man.

I think I can mostly agree with this.

One of my underlying concerns, I guess, is when people carry on as if Young or McKay or Lee were actually violating whatever instructions the Lord was trying to give them. It's one thing to say "we were a bunch of chowderheads, and the Lord told the Church leadership to work with us for a while." It's another thing to say, as Marvin Perkins apparently told the Trib recently, that the ban "was not of God", period.

[Just_A_Guy]

And I also appreciate the way that you and I can disagree and debate things and still be okay about it later. As moderators, we are supposed to be good examples on the forum, and I think we do pretty good! :)

Of course, I think it would take Pam to separate us into our rooms if we couldn't get along after a while!

PAMMY!

Skippy's looking at me.

[skippy740]

They are two different 'statements' coming from different points of view.

1st let's look at this one:

"we were a bunch of chowderheads, and the Lord told the Church leadership to work with us for a while."

You could say the same thing about the Law of Tithing - because we (as a Church) weren't ready for the full law of consecration. Both are doctrinal and are revealed in the scriptures.

The 2nd statement:

the ban "was not of God", period.

There was no revelation ever in the D&C restricting the priesthood from anyone, except by worthiness. If there was a revelation, we would have it.

In short, the priesthood ban was of man... but it took a revelation to reverse the practice. Yes, others have sought the Lord on this subject before 1978. Again, it has not been revealed as to why the Lord didn't instruct for its reversal during those times. We can speculate, but it doesn't do us much good.

Just because it took time to reverse the practice does not mean that the Lord 'endorsed' this practice.

D&C 1:24-28

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

If the Lord knew that errors were going to occur in His Church... who are we to criticize every aspect of the Church? We need to have faith in the Lord and sustain our leaders. This is His Church. Things will happen according to His timeline... including the correcting of past practices and incorrect teachings/doctrines.

[Just_A_Guy]

If there was a revelation, we would have it [presumably, you meant to state, within the D&C itself].

I don't think that's a necessary conclusion at all; for the following reasons:

1. A number of revelations were never included in the D&C, but are in the archives of the Church.

2. Some sections of the D&C aren't actually revelations, but the announcement of the receipt of a revelation whose actual text is for some reason unavailable. Official Declaration 2 falls into this category. A definitive transcript of the revelation itself has never been published, and indeed may not exist.

3. The policy, as I understand it, came about between late 1847 and early 1849. Young was living out of a tent during much of that time. During that period he traveled, as I recall, from Winter Quarters to Salt Lake, then back to Winter Quarters, and then to Salt Lake again; stopping at various points along the way. I think it a mistake to demand the kind of fastidious record keeping Young employed later in life (when he had six clerks in his employ, working just outside his front door), during the midst of the move west.

4. While it is true that some fruitless searches were made in the mid-20th century for any kind of revelation justifying the priesthood ban, this was before the professionalization of LDS archives and the Church frankly didn't know everything it had. (Even in the early 1980s, the Church publicly and incorrectly announced it didn't have the William McClellan journals, because they had were sitting in the First Presidency vault--which had never been cataloged). If the Church had, in the intervening decades, come across a record of such a revelation--do you think they'd announce it publicly? Are you sure?

5. We kind of flirted earlier with the line between "inspiration" versus "revelation". There's no formal "revelation" (that we're aware of) authorizing the construction of small temples or the alteration of the missionary service age, either--so were those policy shifts "not of God" either?

In short, the priesthood ban was of man...

Based on what?

Perkins and his ilk are very fond of pointing out to arch-conservatives like Randy Bott, that the Church leadership has told us to quit speculating on possible reasons for the ban. But they all seem quite willing to step into the void with all kinds of speculative opinions of their own. And as I believe we've discussed before, Perkins in particular has a very odd fascination with having those opinions preached from LDS pulpits, by LDS missionaries, in seminars advertised with fliers bearing the LDS logo.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

So, what you are saying... is that there must be some unpublished revelation indicating that there was a ban in place for those of African lineage... and that it was all of God from the beginning?

And due to the way that Brigham Young was living, he couldn't archive it for posterity?

Is that what you are saying/implying?

***

It is my opinion that we are to avoid speculating as to any kind of 'doctrinal rationalization or justification' for the priesthood ban. There are too many 'hypothesis' for justifying it - such as: 'less valiant in the pre-existence', 'skins of darkness', 'seed of Cain', etc.

There is nothing in church doctrine that has supported the practice. It was a practice that needed a revelation to end. We are not to speculate about the reasons or justification for why the ban existed.

For hard data on how it came about? I find it interesting.

Edited June 12, 2013 by skippy740

[Just_A_Guy]

So, what you are saying... is that there must be some unpublished revelation indicating that there was a ban in place for those of African lineage... and that it was all of God from the beginning?

And due to the way that Brigham Young was living, he couldn't archive it for posterity?

Is that what you are saying/implying?

I thought my previous post was relatively clear. There might be an unpublished written record of a revelation floating around there somewhere. Then again, Young may have gotten a revelatory/inspirational experience leading him to act as he did, that he never got around to recording properly. Then again, maybe Young just made it up, and Harold B. Lee was such a bigoted old codger that the Lord didn't think David O. McKay would be able to rein him in even if McKay could honestly claim that the Lord had offered a new revelation on the subject.*

The point is, we don't know. Under those circumstances, I think that asserting that Young or Lee blocked (intentionally or otherwise) the manifest will of the Lord as it pertained to His Church is a serious accusation and is, in the face of our current state of ignorance, both irresponsible and reckless.

It is my opinion that we are to avoid speculating as to any kind of 'doctrinal rationalization or justification' for the priesthood ban. There are too many 'hypothesis' for justifying it - such as: 'less valiant in the pre-existence', 'skins of darkness', 'seed of Cain', etc.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but are you basically saying that we can't speculate that it was right, but we can speculate that it was wrong?

I would find that very problematic, Skippy; because it isn't remotely similar to what the Church leadership has said. The Church's recent pronouncements are, in fact, of a piece with the opening section from the CES D&C Manual's chapter on OD-2:

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. The scriptural basis for this policy is Abraham 1:21–27. The full reason for the denial has been kept hidden by the Lord, and one is left to assume that He will make it known in His own due time.

There is nothing in church doctrine that has supported the practice.

That is only correct if one uses a very narrow definition of "doctrine" and wholly ignores a number of Church-produced-and-correlated materials, including the one quoted above.

*An interesting argument, that. I've heard people say that Lee had to die after a very short term as President, so that Kimball could step in and receive the revelation. Well, under that logic, why didn't the Lord just take Lee out early and let McKay get the revelation back in the 1950s when he was seeking it?

Edited June 13, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

I thought my previous post was relatively clear. There might be an unpublished written record of a revelation floating around there somewhere. Then again, Young may have gotten a revelatory/inspirational experience leading him to act as he did, that he never got around to recording properly. Then again, maybe Young just made it up, and Harold B. Lee was such a bigoted old codger that the Lord didn't think David O. McKay would be able to rein him in even if McKay could honestly claim that the Lord had offered a new revelation on the subject.*

The point is, we don't know. Under those circumstances, I think that asserting that Young or Lee blocked (intentionally or otherwise) the manifest will of the Lord as it pertained to His Church is a serious accusation and is, in the face of our current state of ignorance, both irresponsible and reckless.

Okay, I can agree with that.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but are you basically saying that we can't speculate that it was right, but we can speculate that it was wrong?

I would find that very problematic, Skippy; because it isn't remotely similar to what the Church leadership has said. The Church's recent pronouncements are, in fact, of a piece with the opening section from the CES D&C Manual's chapter on OD-2:

That intro that you quoted is in direct conflict with the new intro to OD 2 that is now in canonized scripture:

Official Declaration 2 

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

The Primary Book of Mormon Stories book still has yet to be updated with the new chapter headings and footnotes for 2 Nephi 5 as well:

http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/scripture-stories/book-of-mormon-stories/2010-12-11-chapter-9-a-new-home-in-the-promised-land-eng.pdf

Compare with the following: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5?lang=eng

The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites. About 588–559 B.C.

That is only correct if one uses a very narrow definition of "doctrine" and wholly ignores a number of Church-produced-and-correlated materials, including the one quoted above.

And also realizes that many church produced materials are out of date compared to new revisions made in the scriptures.

*An interesting argument, that. I've heard people say that Lee had to die after a very short term as President, so that Kimball could step in and receive the revelation. Well, under that logic, why didn't the Lord just take Lee out early and let McKay get the revelation back in the 1950s when he was seeking it?

We don't know. We also don't know the mind of the Lord on all things.

[Just_A_Guy]

That intro that you quoted is in direct conflict with the new intro to OD 2 that is now in canonized scripture:

Official Declaration 2Â*

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

I'm going to need you to spell that one out for me. I don't see any conflict between the newly revised introduction to OD-2 (which isn't canon, by the way--none of the scripture headings are, or were), and the the D&C study manual as quoted earlier, to wit:

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. The scriptural basis for this policy is Abraham 1:21–27. The full reason for the denial has been kept hidden by the Lord, and one is left to assume that He will make it known in His own due time.

We don't know. We also don't know the mind of the Lord on all things.

Agreed. But our friend Marvin Perkins seems to think that he does know.

[Suzie]

It's another thing to say, as Marvin Perkins apparently told the Trib recently, that the ban "was not of God", period.

I know you're not very fond of Marvin's statements but to be fair, he is just repeating what Darius has been authorized to teach by the Church (Elder Samuelson was the one to give the approval), and in the paper Darius submitted he is allowed to teach that the ban was allowed by God but not imposed by Him.

Of course, he must make a disclaimer in order to teach his personal thoughts however, would the Church allow such teaching to take place if it wasn't true? And if some of you think they can allow such thing..what would be the purpose for the Church to authorize false teachings to take place in the Church?

The Genesis group is overseen by a General Authority, it is a dependent Branch of the Church and the Genesis group Presidency directly reports to the Brethren.

I wrote extensively about Blacks and the Priesthood in some threads here providing historical elements which I personally think were the reasons for the ban so I don't want to sound like an old record but I just wanted to say that about Marvin and Darius.

[Just_A_Guy]

I know you're not very fond of Marvin's statements but to be fair, he is just repeating what Darius has been authorized to teach by the Church (Elder Samuelson was the one to give the approval), and in the paper Darius submitted he is allowed to teach that the ban was allowed by God but not imposed by Him.

Is he? Because Not a Curse but a Calling isn't available from any source I can find online. All I can find are sum-ups like yours. Perkins, at least, outright misrepresents specific passages of the Book of Mormon, and he has a penchant for making missionaries regurgitate his teachings to give himself an air of official imprimatur. (I've discussed this with Skippy on these forums before.)

Of course, he must make a disclaimer in order to teach his personal thoughts however, would the Church allow such teaching to take place if it wasn't true? And if some of you think they can allow such thing..what would be the purpose for the Church to authorize false teachings to take place in the Church?

Suzie, you know darned well what would have happened if the Brethren had lowered the boom on this. The outrage over the September Six would have been nothing in comparison. And Perkins, Margaret Young, and all the rest of them would have been in the forefront.

So instead, the Church allows a modicum of intellectual freedom--and suddenly every spurious teaching and dishonest interpretation of scripture suddenly bears semi-official imprimatur.

The Genesis group is overseen by a General Authority, it is a dependent Branch of the Church and the Genesis group Presidency directly reports to the Brethren.

BYU and the CES are overseen by multiple General Authorities. They may be walking back their former practice of delving into the reasons for the ban, but they're still teaching it as of divine origin.

It is curious that Cecil Samuelson would green-light Gray's teaching such a thing, while simultaneously running an institution whose Religious Education department was teaching the exact opposite. And it's also curious that the only sources who can corroborate Samuelson's supposed support for Gray, are themselves members of the Genesis Group.

Until Samuelson or some other GA chooses to direct a clear and convincing statement to the Church at large, I'll put Gray and Perkins into the same pigeonhole as Cleon Skousen, Denver Snuffer, Randy Bott, and any other popular LDS speaker who gain notoriety by teaching edgy stuff.

[skippy740]

I'm going to need you to spell that one out for me. I don't see any conflict between the newly revised introduction to OD-2 (which isn't canon, by the way--none of the scripture headings are, or were), and the the D&C study manual as quoted earlier, to wit:

The CES manual is using Abraham Chapter 1:21-27 as the reason to justify the ban on the priesthood to those of African descent.

Let's take a look at these verses:

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Let's do some analysis, shall we?

Verse 21-25: establishing lineage of these people.

Verse 26: "seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers" - Imitation is not authority. Just like we believe the Community of Christ does not have the same priesthood authority as the LDS Church does.

Verse 27: Why was he cursed pertaining to the priesthood? Because it was an imitation. He didn't have the authority.

Yes, Pharoah was righteous, but he was imitating righteousness without having the priesthood authority. Notice the footnote for Priesthood: TG Priesthood, Qualifying for... and the footnote for claim: TG Unrighteous Dominion.

It had nothing to do with race or lineage, except to establish it for identifying the lack of priesthood authority.

In fact, take a look earlier in that chapter. Why all the emphasis about the priesthood lineage through the fathers and paternal order? Because Pharoah was trying to claim the rights of the priesthood through the daughter of Ham. Well, as we know, that's not how the patriarchal order of the priesthood is. It's from the father.

Agreed. But our friend Marvin Perkins seems to think that he does know.

Does know the mind and will of the Lord? Or that he knows exactly what happened that caused the priesthood ban?

If it's the first, then we can get a glimpse of it through reading the scriptures.

The second, we both know the official answer of the Church is "we don't know".

If you want an idea of what he thinks he knows, well, this Wikipedia article may help: Walker Lewis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited June 13, 2013 by skippy740

[Just_A_Guy]

Skippy, what you originally said was "That intro that you quoted is in direct conflict with the new intro to OD 2 that is now in canonized scripture:". When pressed to explain why or how, you proceed to offer your own interpretation of a particular scripture which is accompanied by a healthy dose of interpolation (and completely disregards v. 27, which expressly says that Pharoah was "of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood"). That's certainly your prerogative (even if, as I strongly suspect, the interpretation is wrong), but it doesn't show me why the D&C manual "is in direct conflict with the new intro to OD 2".

Does know the mind and will of the Lord? Or that he knows exactly what happened that caused the priesthood ban?

If it's the first, then we can get a glimpse of it through reading the scriptures.

Don't you really mean "reading the scriptures selectively, in the manner that Perkins wants them to be read"?

If you want an idea of what he thinks he knows . . .

There we go again. Perkins is free to go on about what he thinks he knows, but the rest of us just have to muzzle it.

But it's interesting that Perkins would attempt to chalk the whole thing up to outrage at Walker Lewis' son's activities while completely ignoring the antics of the out-and-out charlatan William McCary, who was operating at the same time. Wonder why that might be . . .

It's a stroke of genius, really, making it about sexual repression. Guarantees that the Mormon Left will fall right in line for you.

[skippy740]

It was in direct conflict because the new chapter heading said "we don't know". Yet, the CES manual says "because of Abraham 1:21-27...". That is a conflict. Either we know... or we don't. You can't have it both ways.

I know I can't convince you... and it's not my job to do that. You can continue to believe that there was a revelation about restricting the priesthood for a basis other than worthiness... or not. It's not 'saving doctrine'... especially today.

You can continue to believe that Marvin Perkins is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes... or not. That's up to you. You can think that he's hoodwinked me into thinking something... but that also would be insulting my own intelligence that I haven't studied these things out myself. (I know you're not saying that.)

Everything I've ever posted was what was in the scriptures - footnotes, chapter headings and within the chapters/verses themselves.

I will continue to agree to disagree with you... agreeably. Because no matter WHAT I share with you on this subject, you will find a way to discredit it. You will discredit Perkins (because he helped to orchestrate the message) or you will discredit an interpretation or footnotes or whatever it is.

Have you diligently sought out these things with an open mind and open heart to then pray about them? I have. I cannot tell you what to think or feel about this. But if you haven't sought them out with an open mind and open heart... it's futile.

And with that, I am done commenting on this thread for this particular subject.

[Guest]

Have you diligently sought out these things with an open mind and open heart to then pray about them? I have. I cannot tell you what to think or feel about this. But if you haven't sought them out with an open mind and open heart... it's futile.

Ooooh... low blow. "I've prayed about it and we disagree on it, therefore you must not have prayed about it". I cry foul.

I've read a jillion JAG posts and he doesn't strike me as one who stands on his own understanding of Church matters that he has not pondered and prayed about.

So, if he did and you still disagree, what now?

[skippy740]

We agree to disagree. It's simple. And it's okay.

I didn't assume that he studied these things. I asked a question. Asking a question isn't crying foul. It's asking a question, then clarifying my position on the matter.

It's the same thing with working with the critics of the church. After a period of time, you recognize that the gospel of Jesus Christ is a feeling. You cannot build a testimony on logic alone. It must accompany the Holy Spirit. Without it, you're just educated in a subject, but not taught.

[Guest]

We agree to disagree. It's simple. And it's okay.

I didn't assume that he studied these things. I asked a question. Asking a question isn't crying foul. It's asking a question, then clarifying my position on the matter.

It's the same thing with working with the critics of the church. After a period of time, you recognize that the gospel of Jesus Christ is a feeling. You cannot build a testimony on logic alone. It must accompany the Holy Spirit. Without it, you're just educated in a subject, but not taught.

But you're not talking to a critic of the Church. You're talking to JAG. One that you know knows better than to discuss Church matters without the Spirit. So your question rings of passive-aggressive melodrama.

But hey, I'm just an interested observer with no skin in the game... I could be wrong, of course.

[Just_A_Guy]

It was in direct conflict because the new chapter heading said "we don't know". Yet, the CES manual says "because of Abraham 1:21-27...". That is a conflict.

No, it wasn't; because no, they don't. The new heading says "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.". The manual says "The scriptural basis for this policy is Abraham 1:21–27. The full reason for the denial has been kept hidden by the Lord, and one is left to assume that He will make it known in His own due time." (emphasis added).

Either we know... or we don't. You can't have it both ways.

But Perkins, apparently, can.

I know I can't convince you... and it's not my job to do that. You can continue to believe that there was a revelation about restricting the priesthood for a basis other than worthiness... or not. It's not 'saving doctrine'... especially today.

Agreed; except insofar that it is used to undermine the spiritual authority of current LDS leadership; and I hope you'd agree with me there as well. :)

You can continue to believe that Marvin Perkins is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes... or not. That's up to you. . . . You will discredit Perkins (because he helped to orchestrate the message) . . .

I discredit Perkins because he misrepresents the scriptures and wrests them to his own agenda; and because his attempts to invoke the imprimatur of the Church on what he does are IMHO underhanded if not outright slimy.

. . . or you will discredit an interpretation or footnotes or whatever it is.

I happen to think that faulty interpretations should be discredited.

I will continue to agree to disagree with you... agreeably.

Agreed.

Have you diligently sought out these things with an open mind and open heart to then pray about them? I have. I cannot tell you what to think or feel about this. But if you haven't sought them out with an open mind and open heart... it's futile.

Yes, I have.

[Suzie]

Is he? Because Not a Curse but a Calling isn't available from any source I can find online. All I can find are sum-ups like yours. Perkins, at least, outright misrepresents specific passages of the Book of Mormon, and he has a penchant for making missionaries regurgitate his teachings to give himself an air of official imprimatur. (I've discussed this with Skippy on these forums before.)

It is not available online AND I can guarantee you that what Marvin said about the ban being allowed by God but not imposed by Him, it's included in that article Darius wrote, the same article he received approval from the Brethren. First-hand information, no rumor.

Suzie, you know darned well what would have happened if the Brethren had lowered the boom on this. The outrage over the September Six would have been nothing in comparison.

JAG, are you implying the Church makes decisions based on social pressure? So they rather people teach that the ban was not from God because they're concerned certain groups will get angry and make noise?

And Perkins, Margaret Young, and all the rest of them would have been in the forefront.

I really don't understand you dislike for them, I know you didn't say it out loud but it is usually sort of implied in your posts, it bugs me. Margaret is a very caring and humble woman, she is also very intelligent and compassionate. Darius is a good man loved by many and works very hard (few people know how much) despite his health. This issue is VERY important to him, he is not teaching "edgy stuff", he is teaching what he has been authorized to teach by the Brethren, you can choose to believe it or not.

[skippy740]

It's okay Suzie. One of the problems is that Brother Perkins has chosen not to reveal or publish any letters of review by the First Presidency or members of the Quorum of the Twelve. In fact, it was President Hinckley who helped to secure the copyright permission to use general authority images from the Church.

But you can't use that to make your point. Just like showing the Golden Plates doesn't make The Book of Mormon any more true to someone who hasn't read and prayed about it.

We simply let the message stand for itself. The neat thing, is that our church membership isn't dependent upon this. Nor is our temple recommend interview granted or denied based upon this.

Personally, I think there is a reason why it hasn't been widely spread from General Conference or through other means. It can be a hard pill to swallow. "You mean our leaders weren't perfect? You mean that our past leaders were racist compared to today's standards? You mean God doesn't have a PPI with the prophet every single week and make instantaneous corrections of doctrine every Thursday in the temple?"

What it does show for me, is that it's harder to be a Prophet of God than I was raised to believe it is. You do your best. But every single word, action and deed is always going to be thoroughly questioned. You actually lose your freedom of speech because you don't know who is recording what you said for posterity.

There are many members that probably couldn't handle hearing that and would rather see the history of the church through rose-colored glasses. (I'm not saying that JAG falls into this category at all.) If many members couldn't handle this... who would be left to fulfill callings? (Yes, I'm taking a 'worst case scenario' approach on this.)

I try my best to share what I know and believe. But just like in missionary work, I can't make someone trust me. I have to let the message speak for itself.

I have no ill-feelings for JAG at all. I consider him a great asset and very knowledgeable. I may not understand why some think the way they do, but I try.

[Suzie]

I have no ill-feelings for JAG at all. I consider him a great asset and very knowledgeable.

I hope I didn't come across as attacking JAG because it wasn't my intention at all. I like him lots and I enjoy debating Church history with him. We disagree in a few things but just like you and him do, we seem to know where to draw the line. :)

[Bini]

Things were mentioned that I hadn't even thought of. I read through the entirety of this thread last night and found it all to be very thought provoking. That said, the Priesthood issue was an issue that did linger in the back of my mind.

[bytebear]

Here's my thought. God chooses to guide His children based on what is best for them. we look back through history and say "God (or the church) should have done something different" but the decisions and policies of the past were for the people of the past. Who knows what would have happened had things been different, but God guides us based on what is best for us NOW, in our time, in our culture, and in our mindset.

[Just_A_Guy]

It is not available online AND I can guarantee you that what Marvin said about the ban being allowed by God but not imposed by Him, it's included in that article Darius wrote, the same article he received approval from the Brethren. First-hand information, no rumor.

Suzie, I have no first-hand information. All I have (no offense to you or Skippy) is anonymous and/or second-hand rumors on the internet.

JAG, are you implying the Church makes decisions based on social pressure?

Sure. Aren't you? Our difference is only the degree to which the Church allows social pressure to influence policy; not whether or not it happens.

So they rather people teach that the ban was not from God because they're concerned certain groups will get angry and make noise?

Skippy has pretty much argued the converse in the succeeding post to yours: that the Church only chooses not to formally and openly endorse Perkins, et al. because they're afraid of alienating the conservatives who make the Church run at the grass-roots level.

I really don't understand you dislike for them, I know you didn't say it out loud but it is usually sort of implied in your posts, it bugs me.

Skippy and I have had this discussion before here--I don't have time to do a forum search at present--but I have listened to Perkins and have identified specific parts of his analysis of scripture where he is either so colossally ignorant of the context as to have no business lecturing on it--or he is lying. And I continue to believe his tactics are extremely questionable.

Margaret is a very caring and humble woman, she is also very intelligent and compassionate.

I've read a number of Ms. Young's writings and commentaries online. My take is that she is indeed very "compassionate"--to those who agree with her. Moreover, from some of her comments on other issues I believe she's very carefully trying to a lay a foundation on which she and others can build to attack the Church's policy on the sinfulness of gay sex. So no, I don't trust her.

Darius is a good man loved by many and works very hard (few people know how much) despite his health. This issue is VERY important to him, he is not teaching "edgy stuff", he is teaching what he has been authorized to teach by the Brethren, you can choose to believe it or not.

You'll note I haven't been nearly as harsh with Gray as I have with Perkins or Young, except to note the lack of primary sources and pigeonhole him with "Cleon Skousen, Denver Snuffer, Randy Bott, and any other popular LDS speaker who gain notoriety by teaching edgy stuff." I happen to like both Skousen and Bott, but let's be candid: They aren't orthodox.

One of the problems is that Brother Perkins has chosen not to reveal or publish any letters of review by the First Presidency or members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

Skippy, I love you, but this "wink-wink-nudge-nudge-the-general-authorities-agree-with-me-even-though-they-won't-say-so-openly" bit is the stuff of which apostasy is made. I do not find it persuasive at all. In fact, I find that it undercuts your position.

In fact, it was President Hinckley who helped to secure the copyright permission to use general authority images from the Church.

Granting permission for third parties to use Church-copyrighted material is pretty routine in academic circles. This is precisely the kind of inflationary, mountain-out-of-molehills, grasping-at-straws-to-imply-Church-sanction tactic that makes me mistrust Perkins even more.

Personally, I think there is a reason why it hasn't been widely spread from General Conference or through other means. It can be a hard pill to swallow. "You mean our leaders weren't perfect? You mean that our past leaders were racist compared to today's standards? You mean God doesn't have a PPI with the prophet every single week and make instantaneous corrections of doctrine every Thursday in the temple?" [bolding added. --JAG]

Oh, I'm quite OK with that notion. But to reduce the priesthood ban to the terminology you describe, frankly, trivializes the situation. We conservatives are well aware of what black Mormons went through at the hands of this policy. If that policy was, in fact, a violation of the Lord's explicit instructions to the Church leadership--that's a big deal, Skippy. A very big deal indeed. It's exponentially beyond "oops".

There are many members that probably couldn't handle hearing that and would rather see the history of the church through rose-colored glasses. (I'm not saying that JAG falls into this category at all.) If many members couldn't handle this... who would be left to fulfill callings? (Yes, I'm taking a 'worst case scenario' approach on this.)

Wait a minute, here--

Perkins, et al can teach these exact same things, and it would seem that the masses eat it up. But you're saying that Monson, Uchtorf, Holland, et al. couldn't pull it off with the Church as a whole?

I doubt that. I doubt it very much.

[skippy740]

Wait a minute, here--

Perkins, et al can teach these exact same things, and it would seem that the masses eat it up. But you're saying that Monson, Uchtorf, Holland, et al. couldn't pull it off with the Church as a whole?

I doubt that. I doubt it very much.

I'll just address this last part as I think we've beaten the other horses to death. :)

When Brother Perkins did his initial studies and found what he found (in the footnotes, etc.), he contacted the general authorities about it. He was hoping to encourage them to speak on the subject.

Brother Perkins was encouraged to work on a 'grass roots' level - teaching those he comes into contact.

Playing devil's advocate here: The reasons why GAs won't talk about this isn't clear. There doesn't seem to be unity on this subject (just like between you and me).

In my own local area, I've been restricted from distributing such content on Church property in my stake. My bishop is highly supportive, yet I don't have support on the stake level. It may come from the local Area Authority Seventy... but I don't know that for certain.

Yet, I can travel 50 miles and attend a fireside with Brother Perkins who has their local stake presidency in attendance. (Which happens to be under a different Area Authority Seventy.)

The former mission president's wife of our mission is now in the General Relief Society Presidency... and has visited with Marvin and Sister Perkins. They appreciate the work they are doing.

So, I sustain my leaders by being in compliance with their request. I do not distribute materials on church property within the stake. But it just seems that the Brethren are not yet united on this. And perhaps THIS is why they won't talk about this in General Conference... until the brethren can be united and in agreement.

Note: I was not given any doctrinal reason for not distributing the materials. I am prepared to have a doctrinal discussion on the scriptures, but just the conversation was rejected. So I stay in compliance, but it's not like they used the opportunity to teach me something different.

That's just my opinion from my own observation.

Edited June 17, 2013 by skippy740

[Just_A_Guy]

I'll just address this last part as I think we've beaten the other horses to death. :)

When Brother Perkins did his initial studies and found what he found (in the footnotes, etc.), he contacted the general authorities about it. He was hoping to encourage them to speak on the subject.

Brother Perkins was encouraged to work on a 'grass roots' level - teaching those he comes into contact.

Sez he . . .

Playing devil's advocate here: The reasons why GAs won't talk about this isn't clear. There doesn't seem to be unity on this subject (just like between you and me).

In my own local area, I've been restricted from distributing such content on Church property in my stake. My bishop is highly supportive, yet I don't have support on the stake level. It may come from the local Area Authority Seventy... but I don't know that for certain.

But aren't Young, Perkins, and Gray claiming GA support for their activities? If they know the GAs aren't united, then isn't that a little dishonest?

The whole thing's just fishy, Skippy. People could--and have--used the same tactics to teach spiritual wifery, the continuance of polygamy post-1904-manifesto, bizarre theories about the supposed agency of sub-atomic particles, hyper-invasive interpretations of the Word of Wisdom, and any other kind of tomfoolery.