Church issues Race & Priesthood statement rejecting theories for past ban on Blacks in priesthood

[Just_A_Guy]

Let's keep in mind that Young never approved interracial marriages. He tolerated them for a while but as a typical 19th century man, he believed interracial marriages would cause the sterilization of mankind, hence when he found out about Enoch's marriage and newborn child with Matilda, he was very upset.

IIRC, and FWIW, Young's reply to Appleby regarding being "eunuchs in heaven", or whatever, was given after he learned of Lewis' child. But of course, my point all along isn't necessarily that Young had no problems with interracial marriages--just that he didn't think that they were enough of a problem to warrant completely banning blacks from the priesthood. I think he saw McCary and any potential successors as primarily ecclesiastical, not sexual rivals.

According to some sources, Walker Lewis's wife, Elizabeth Lovejoy was biracial making Enoch of a mixed heritage but I am aware that some other sources said both were black slaves.

Elijah Abel was also of mixed heritage (Octoroon).

McCary was also biracial (mom was black, father was her slavemaster).

I find it interesting because all these people were not purely African-American and yet a lot of controversy was surrounded with regards to the Priesthood.

Even though during the 19th century, the "one drop rule" was not made yet into law, it is clear that was very much alive and kicking. Just before the Priesthood restriction was lifted, the Church faced a similar challenge with questions arising from all over Brazil with regards to individual of mixed heritage and the Priesthood restriction.

Thanks. I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that the fact that they had mixed heritage was in and of itself interesting, or you were driving at some other point (I agree with you about the implications for the one-drop rule; but the my understanding was that the mere presence of mulattoes, quadroons, etc. was pretty commonplace and therefore unremarkable per se.)

[frederick]

Suzie,

Thank you for your comments. I guess to be fair to the other side, you are right, they are simply uncertain to what the origins of this ban are. However, this response on behalf of the church does not make the church look good either. Especially because we believe in continuing revelation. What the church admits here is that our leaders have received no revelation regarding this matter. Does this mean they haven't asked, or does it mean the heavens are shut regarding this matter? In either case the answer is not good for the church. I don't think the church has adequately addressed this issue. In fact, they may have done more harm than good to themselves by their own statements.

As I stated before, who is to say now that someday in the future we may not hear a church leader proclaim that today's leaders were wrong on various issues.

Honestly, if our faith is in Christ and His word as it is found in our scriptures, then I feel we have nothing to worry about. His word does not change. Clearly the words of our leaders does change. If our faith is in Christ, we will not be shaken.

Lastly, Vort called me a liar. However, I simply restated the official position of the church. Vort, I think you should take your objections up with the church PR department and not me. To be clear, you said I lied when I stated that the church is unclear on the origins of the ban and that they said the ban was not from God. I will include the quote from the church and let everyone decide if I was lying or not. I will take one step further, I think their response was very weak and harmful to the church. If there was a divine origin, they should cite it. If they had divine revelation today regarding this subject, they could cite that. The fact that they don't, and clearly say the origin is unclear, and also say that statements regarding the ban were made in the absence of direct revelation does not make them look good at all.

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God

[Vort]

Lastly, Vort called me a liar.

Now, be fair.

1. I never mentioned you specifically. You made that connection explicit. (Believe it or not, you are not the first to have made the false allegation you put forward.)

2. I offered an alternate explanation for those I mentioned: They are stupid and/or incapable of reading plain English.

Interesting that of the two possibilities, you chose to apply the "liar" one to yourself.

However, I simply restated the official position of the church.

You most certainly did not "simply restat[e] the official position of the Church." So tell us, frederick: Are you lying? Or are you stupid? Or can't you understand written English?

Vort, I think you should take your objections up with the church PR department and not me.

Why might I do that? I have no problem with the Church's statement. I have a problem with your dishonest representation of that statement.

To be clear, you said I lied when I stated that the church is unclear on the origins of the ban and that they said the ban was not from God.

Specifically the latter part.

If they had divine revelation today regarding this subject, they could cite that. The fact that they don't, and clearly say the origin is unclear, and also say that statements regarding the ban were made in the absence of direct revelation does not make them look good at all.

Well, that's totally a matter of opinion. What it makes it look like is that -- get ready for it -- they don't know the origin of the Priesthood ban.

But the statement that "they said the ban was not from God" is a lie. Nowhere did they say that. Here is the very piece you quoted:

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God

Where does it say that "the ban was not from God"? I claim that it is a lie to maintain that that sentiment is contained in the above snippet, or indeed in the entire document under consideration. So it's time to put up or shut up, frederick. It's all on you now. Prove me wrong, and I will withdraw my allegation and apologize. Fail to prove me wrong, and you withdraw your falsehood and apologize for having said it. Deal?

Edited December 20, 2013 by Vort

[Suzie]

I think he saw McCary and any potential successors as primarily ecclesiastical, not sexual rivals.

I really can't see Young being concerned about McCary in that way, I do not thiink there is any serious indication that it was the case but I suppose it could be a possibility. However, I believe we can agree that his statements with regards to the Priesthood restriction around the same time of McCary's incident is not pure coincidence.

JAG, you ultra-conservative Mormon! I really appreciate the discussion. We disagree in a lot of other topics but we always remain courteous. How great is that? :)

[Suzie]

On the other hand, I have a very firm opinion on those who claim the Church's statement is tantamount to a confession of an origin of racism and bigotry: They are liars. Or, less probably, they are phenomenally stupid and/or incapable of reading plain English.

Everyone reads what they want to read. I am cool with anyone's opinion as long as they state it is their personal view.

[Suzie]

Suzie,

Thank you for your comments. I guess to be fair to the other side, you are right, they are simply uncertain to what the origins of this ban are. However, this response on behalf of the church does not make the church look good either. Especially because we believe in continuing revelation. What the church admits here is that our leaders have received no revelation regarding this matter. Does this mean they haven't asked, or does it mean the heavens are shut regarding this matter? In either case the answer is not good for the church. I don't think the church has adequately addressed this issue. In fact, they may have done more harm than good to themselves by their own statements.

I wrote a little about it on post #140.

[Vort]

Everyone reads what they want to read. I am cool with anyone's opinion as long as they state it is their personal view.

Well, then, I take your words to mean that you hate men, freedom, and puppies! You despicable man-hating, freedom-hating puppy-hater!

I suspect that you are somewhat less laissez-faire about opinions when things you actually care about are badly misrepresented by those with an agenda. But maybe I'm wrong, and you really don't care what anyone says about anything so long as they include the appropriate disclaimers.

Of course, nowhere did frederick provide the disclaimer you mention. Just wondering if you were still "cool" with what he said, despite the omission.

[frederick]

Vort,

The church said statements in regards to this were made in the direct absence of revelation. Hmm... What does that mean? Does that mean some statements were made by revelation? If that were true, they should say which ones were made by revelation. They make no such claim. Since BY made many statements regarding blacks and the priesthood, I have to assume the church was referring to him as well as others when they said these statements were made in the absence of direct revelation. Meaning, these statements did not come from God!

They also say that the statements regarding the ban do not reflect church doctrine. Are you suggesting that doctrine changes? If so, that's a huge can of worms that you can feel free to open. Otherwise, I believe my statement is correct. I think it is even more honest than the church's statement because it says the obvious more plainly.

Please feel free to quote the statements regarding the ban on blacks and priesthood that were made under direct revelation from God. I will happily retract my statement when I see one.

[Suzie]

I suspect that you are somewhat less laissez-faire about opinions when things you actually care about are badly misrepresented by those with an agenda. But maybe I'm wrong, and you really don't care what anyone says about anything so long as they include the appropriate disclaimers.

I try my best to detached myself emotionally from internet discussions, it doesn't always work. It is easy to type and say whatever you like when hiding behind a computer screen so I try to take it easy. It doesn't mean I am not going to refute a point if I have proof, it doesn't mean I am not going to disagree but I rather do it peacefully: 1) Because I already live a very stressful life and coming here actually relaxes me and helps me cope and 2) Because it is more productive to do it that way, IMO.

People are entitled to their views, even if I believe they are misinterpreting a point on purpose. I can refute the point if I think is worth it or feel to do so and show how wrong they are if I have proof but I do not believe in censuring their views IF they are expressed in a respectful manner.

Of course, nowhere did frederick provide the disclaimer you mention. Just wondering if you were still "cool" with what he said, despite the omission.

Once the disclaimer of "In my opinion"/"IMHO"/"In my personal view" is there, I am cool with it. Being "cool" does not mean I agree, it means it doesn't bother me in the least that he expressed his opinion in a respectful manner.

[Vort]

The church said statements in regards to this were made in the direct absence of revelation. Hmm... What does that mean?

Its meaning is obvious for those who read English fluently: Statements made to explain the reasons for the Priesthood ban -- e.g. Africans were descendants of evil Cain and were being punished for Cain's doings, Africans were fence-sitters in premortality and were denied the Priesthood blessings because of that, or whatever other explanations were concocted -- were made in the absence of revelation.

It's not hard, frederick. Just read the words in context.

What it manifestly does not say is what you are claiming: That the Priesthood ban itself was made in the direct absence of revelation. Shame on you for propagating this transparent lie. If you are LDS, you should know better. And if you are not LDS, we don't really need any more anti-Mormons here.

Since BY made many statements regarding blacks and the priesthood, I have to assume the church was referring to him as well as others when they said these statements were made in the absence of direct revelation. Meaning, these statements did not come from God!

Why, yes. That's true. And therefore...?

They also say that the statements regarding the ban do not reflect church doctrine.

Again, a brilliant exposition of what was already plainly stated. Thanks.

Are you suggesting that doctrine changes? If so, that's a huge can of worms that you can feel free to open.

Are you suggesting that the earth's oceans are composed of grape Kool-Aid®? If so, good luck with that. If not, why on earth would you ask me such a ridiculous question?

Otherwise, I believe my statement is correct.

Yet you have not demonstrated that your statement is in fact correct. You have nowhere demonstrated that the Church's statements "are very clear that the ban was not from God." This statement is so clearly dishonest that no reasonable debate can exist on the matter.

Of course, if it can, prove me wrong. Show me where the Church says what you claim.

Please feel free to quote the statements regarding the ban on blacks and priesthood that were made under direct revelation from God.

Why would I do this? I never made any such claim.

But you, on the other hand, have made a claim. Now back your claim up or admit you were wrong. Quit dodging the issue.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Vort
oops, forgot to edit something before posting

[Vort]

Once the disclaimer of "In my opinion"/"IMHO"/"In my personal view" is there, I am cool with it. Being "cool" does not mean I agree, it means it doesn't bother me in the least that he expressed his opinion in a respectful manner.

Perhaps you can point out to me where frederick's "In my opinion"/"IMHO"/"In my personal view" was. I must have missed it. Seemed to me he said the exact opposite:

Interestingly, official sources remain unclear at best on the origins of this ban. Yet,

they are very clear that the ban was not from God

, statements in regards to the ban were made in the direct absence of any revelation, which means Brigham Young was wrong.

The official statements are so clear as to preclude any other viewpoint on this matter.

[Suzie]

Perhaps you can point out to me where frederick's "In my opinion"/"IMHO"/"In my personal view" was. I must have missed it. Seemed to me he said the exact opposite:

Interestingly, official sources remain unclear at best on the origins of this ban. Yet,

they are very clear that the ban was not from God

, statements in regards to the ban were made in the direct absence of any revelation, which means Brigham Young was wrong.

The official statements are so clear as to preclude any other viewpoint on this matter.

I meant that if he says it is his personal opinion, I am cool with it.

[Vort]

I meant that if he says it is his personal opinion, I am cool with it.

Yes, and where did he say it was his personal opinion? (Answer: He didn't. He said it was inarguably true.)

[Suzie]

The church said statements in regards to this were made in the direct absence of revelation. Hmm... What does that mean?

It means, that a lot of past Church leaders were just expressing their personal views on the topic and yes, we can add Pratt, McConkie, Young and anyone who shared opinions about Blacks being less valiant in the pre-existence, carrying Cain's curse, etc.

They also say that the statements regarding the ban do not reflect church doctrine. Are you suggesting that doctrine changes?

The restriction was never doctrinal, it was a policy, a practice and policies and practices do change.

[Suzie]

Yes, and where did he say it was his personal opinion? (Answer: He didn't. He said it was inarguably true.)

And you are refuting his points so what exactly seems to be the issue?

[Vort]

And you are refuting his points so what exactly seems to be the issue?

The issue is that you took issue with my response by saying how free and easy you were with anyone expressing an opinion, just so long as the individual did say it was an opinion. Your shaming of me may be appropriate -- heaven knows I have embarrassed myself multiple times on this forum -- but your argument is bogus unless you can show how frederick provided the disclaimers you mentioned.

And if he didn't (which he didn't), what exactly was your point in post #151? Do you consider a false statement that the Church did something which it didn't do to be "respectful"?

[Suzie]

The issue is that you took issue with my response by saying how free and easy you were with anyone expressing an opinion, just so long as the individual did say it was an opinion. Your shaming of me may be appropriate -- heaven knows I have embarrassed myself multiple times on this forum -- but your argument is bogus unless you can show how frederick provided the disclaimers you mentioned.

Oh wow, to be honest Vort I am very, very surprised with your response because I did not take issue with your reply at all, I was only expressing how *I* truly feel about people expressing their views. I am quite surprised you assumed that, I did not mean to shame you, why would I do that? And I deeply apologize if my response stating that I am cool with other people's opinion made you feel like I was taking issue with your view, I assure you it did not cross my mind for one second.

[Suzie]

Someone can express something completely false and yet do it in a respectful manner. Nobody has to agree with how I think about it, this is how I see it.

Having said that, I would love to go back to the topic if there is anything else to discuss that haven't been discussed as yet.

[Timpman]

Aren't we safe in stating we do not know really who instituted the ban? The present day- Church had the opportunity to clearly state that it was instituted by God, however they stated: . . .

No, I don't think we're safe in stating that at all. You have random statements from Young himself. You have the First Presidency's 1949 statement, re-stated earlier in this thread. You have Gordon Hinckley being asked point blank by ABC News in 1997 whether the ban was wrong, and his direct response was "No I don't think it was wrong."

In one corner we have multiple, multiple Church leaders and official statements saying that the policy was divinely instituted. In the other corner we have . . . "the origins are not entirely clear and the rationales offered thus far are non-authoritative". It's not even a contest, IMHO.

President Hinckley’s interview does not constitute anything official whatsoever, and all he said is "I don't think it was wrong." It has been decades since a real claim has been made that the ban was instituted by God. We do, however, have a church statement issued 02/29/2012 that 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. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

Why cling to old statements that were not meant for this time? Those statements were essentially voided.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Timpman

[Just_A_Guy]

President Hinckley’s interview does not constitute anything official whatsoever, and all he said is "I don't think it was wrong." It has been decades since a real claim has been made that the ban was instituted by God.

This is a really interesting phenomenon in liberal Mormonism--the idea that any teaching that is not officially re-stated every decade or so, magically becomes no longer "true".

We do, however, have a church statement issued 02/29/2012 that 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. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

Why cling to old statements that were not meant for this time? Those statements were essentially voided.

The statement doesn't say "we have no idea why"--let alone "we have a pretty good idea why, and it was due to racism". It says "it is not known precisely why, how, or when".

I am flabbergasted at the idea that Hinckley's 1997 statement was "not meant for this time". The 1949 First Presidency statement may not have been written for us--but if its assertion that the policy was divinely inspired was true then, it's true now. Ditto for Young's claims that the impetus for the policy--whatever the reasoning behind it--came from God. Either Young was telling the truth as he understood it, or he wasn't.

Moreover, OD-2 includes:

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, . . .

That verbiage is telling. Not "Aware that the policy was wrong", but "aware that the Lord would someday let us change things".

As for other official LDS sources:

The CES' Institute D&C manual--still in print and in use--says the following:

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.

The CES' seminary D&C teacher's manual--again, still in print and still in use, and re-approved as recently as 2005--says the following:

Tell students that one recent example of modern revelation is found at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants. For many years, the Lord instructed the prophets that those of Black African descent could not receive the priesthood or the ordinances of the temple. . .

The idea that the ban came from the Lord is still very much alive and well in the LDS Church.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

The 1949 First Presidency statement may not have been written for us--but if its assertion that the policy was divinely inspired was true then, it's true now. Ditto for Young's claims that the impetus for the policy--whatever the reasoning behind it--came from God. Either Young was telling the truth as he understood it, or he wasn't.

The problem with the 1949 First Presidency statement is that they also included Young's explanation about the"curse"... a "curse" that a few days ago, the Church clearly disavowed.

[Suzie]

The CES' seminary D&C teacher's manual--again, still in print and still in use, and re-approved as recently as 2005--says the following:

Tell students that one recent example of modern revelation is found at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants. For many years, the Lord instructed the prophets that those of Black African descent could not receive the priesthood or the ordinances of the temple. . .

The idea that the ban came from the Lord is still very much alive and well in the LDS Church.

Wait until someone seriously take issue with that statement or ask for more clarification. PR will move at the speed of light!

[frederick]

I am flabbergasted at the idea that Hinckley's 1997 statement was "not meant for this time". The 1949 First Presidency statement may not have been written for us--but if its assertion that the policy was divinely inspired was true then, it's true now. Ditto for Young's claims that the impetus for the policy--whatever the reasoning behind it--came from God. Either Young was telling the truth as he understood it, or he wasn't.

JAG, the church disagrees with your views here. I'm amazed at the cognitive dissonance displayed by so many people here who insist that it is simply impossible that our leaders could make a mistake. Vort outright stated that BY did not lead the saints astray. Yet, it is clear that the church has completely disavowed these views and stated plain as plain can be, that the statements in regards to the ban were made in the absence of revelation and do not represent church doctrine.

If BY was wrong, as the church says he was, then he led the saints astray on this matter. In fact, for over 100 years people regurgitated the views originally spouted by Young until now when they have made it abundantly clear that these views came in the absence if revelation and do not represent church doctrine.

If anyone refutes what I say, please find the quotes that were made under direct revelation. Quotes that have not been currently disavowed by the most recent position of the church.

I will gladly revise my statements when I see where someone can direct me to the divinely inspired quotes that affirm the ban was from God.

The scriptures, as I have shown previously, state the opposite of the prophet cannot lead you astray. It is those who cling dogmatically to this doctrine that seem to have the biggest difficulty in accepting what the church has done with its last two statements on blacks and the priesthood.

Nowhere are we commanded in scriptures to place our faith in an organization. We are to have faith in Christ. No where does it say in scriptures that we are to trust men, it says the opposite, cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh.

To NickN, don't worry about your testimony of the church. This is not what matters, put your faith in Christ. We aren't supposed to have a testimony of a church.

If your faith is in Christ, you will recognize His words. You will know the Book of Mormon is true. You will recognize His words in all of our modern scriptures as well as ancient. The frailties of men will no longer affect your testimony, because those men do not matter. We are all weak and prone to stumble. That is why it is so wrong to put your faith in men or an institution run by men. Yet, if your faith is centered on Christ, you can see His hand guiding His church.

Have faith in Christ. Search for His words in the scriptures. Learn to recognize the Spirit. The only doctrine of Christ is to follow the Spirit, as it will teach you all things what you should do, until Christ shall manifest Himself unto you in the flesh.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'll say it again. "SOME" statements. SOME. You are either misreading or intentionally misrepresenting.

JAG, the church disagrees with your views here. I'm amazed at the cognitive dissonance displayed by so many people here who insist that it is simply impossible that our leaders could make a mistake. Vort outright stated that BY did not lead the saints astray. Yet, it is clear that the church has completely disavowed these views and stated plain as plain can be, that the statements in regards to the ban were made in the absence of revelation and do not represent church doctrine.

If BY was wrong, as the church says he was, then he led the saints astray on this matter. In fact, for over 100 years people regurgitated the views originally spouted by Young until now when they have made it abundantly clear that these views came in the absence if revelation and do not represent church doctrine.

If anyone refutes what I say, please find the quotes that were made under direct revelation. Quotes that have not been currently disavowed by the most recent position of the church.

I will gladly revise my statements when I see where someone can direct me to the divinely inspired quotes that affirm the ban was from God.

The scriptures, as I have shown previously, state the opposite of the prophet cannot lead you astray. It is those who cling dogmatically to this doctrine that seem to have the biggest difficulty in accepting what the church has done with its last two statements on blacks and the priesthood.

Nowhere are we commanded in scriptures to place our faith in an organization. We are to have faith in Christ. No where does it say in scriptures that we are to trust men, it says the opposite, cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh.

To NickN, don't worry about your testimony of the church. This is not what matters, put your faith in Christ. We aren't supposed to have a testimony of a church.

If your faith is in Christ, you will recognize His words. You will know the Book of Mormon is true. You will recognize His words in all of our modern scriptures as well as ancient. The frailties of men will no longer affect your testimony, because those men do not matter. We are all weak and prone to stumble. That is why it is so wrong to put your faith in men or an institution run by men. Yet, if your faith is centered on Christ, you can see His hand guiding His church.

Have faith in Christ. Search for His words in the scriptures. Learn to recognize the Spirit. The only doctrine of Christ is to follow the Spirit, as it will teach you all things what you should do, until Christ shall manifest Himself unto you in the flesh.

[Just_A_Guy]

The problem with the 1949 First Presidency statement is that they also included Young's explanation about the"curse"... a "curse" that a few days ago, the Church clearly disavowed.

Well, the problem with Uchtdorf's most recent conference address in which he admitted fault by individual Church leaders, is that it also says the Church will never divert from its divinely appointed course--a statement that you and Frederick seem to claim is somehow being disavowed. If the 1949 statement is "all or nothing" and I can't use it to support my point of view, then why isn't the 2013 statement similarly "all or nothing" and unavailable to support your point of view?

JAG, the church disagrees with your views here.

How can the Church "disagree with my views" when current Church instructional materials are reinforcing exactly what I've been saying? Your challenges are coming off as either colossally ignorant, or more than a little dishonest.

I'm amazed at the cognitive dissonance displayed by so many people here who insist that it is simply impossible that our leaders could make a mistake.

That's not the position of anyone here.

Vort outright stated that BY did not lead the saints astray.

Back before you were participating, we had some discussion several pages back as to what "lead the saints astray", in context of Woodruff's larger quote, meant. I suggest you look at that before trying to argue in sound bytes.

Yet, it is clear that the church has completely disavowed these views and stated plain as plain can be, that the statements in regards to the ban were made in the absence of revelation and do not represent church doctrine.

The explanations, yes. The policy? The Church says no such thing. In fact, it's still teaching to the contrary.

If BY was wrong, as the church says he was, then he led the saints astray on this matter.

Again, look at Woodruff's actual quote in the supporting text to OD-1, and compare with what was said earlier in this thread.

If anyone refutes what I say, please find the quotes that were made under direct revelation. Quotes that have not been currently disavowed by the most recent position of the church.

I've already done so.

I will gladly revise my statements when I see where someone can direct me to the divinely inspired quotes that affirm the ban was from God.

Ah, this explains your mentality a bit more. A "quote" isn't enough, it has to be a "divinely inspired" quote. But you will dismiss any quote that disagrees with you as being per se uninspired--even if it's printed in our modern scriptures--so you can't lose! :)

The scriptures, as I have shown previously, state the opposite of the prophet cannot lead you astray.

Uhh . . . you do realize that Woodruff's quote about the prophet not leading the Church astray is in the scriptures, right?

Now, that individual prophets can err, is not at issue here. Your notion that the people of God can apostatize, and that the ecclesiastical authorities can follow suit in toto, is certainly correct as a general principle--and it undeniably happened to ancient Israel, which is what Isaiah (who Nephi was quoting) was talking about.

But Woodruff's quote was geared towards this dispensation, specifically. The scriptural record is clear that the modern Church will not go astray in the same way ancient Israel did; and that this is the last restoration:

--D&C 112:30: For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times,

--D&C 90:2: Therefore, thou art blessed from henceforth that bear the keys of the kingdom given unto you; which kingdom is coming forth for the last time.

--Jacob 5:71: And the Lord of the vineyard said unto them: Go to, and labor in the vineyard, with your might. For behold, this is the last time that I shall nourish my vineyard; for the end is nigh at hand, and the season speedily cometh; and if ye labor with your might with me ye shall have joy in the fruit which I shall lay up unto myself against the time which will soon come.

--D&C 33:3: For behold, the field is white already to harvest; and it is the eleventh hour, and the last time that I shall call laborers into my vineyard.

The prophetic record is even more clear--from statements of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, JFS and JFS-II, Grant, Lee, Benson, and so on; as well as the correlated productions of the Church up to the present day.

Moreover, your quotation of D&C 101 is interesting, because if anything it reinforces the importance of having those watchmen on the tower. The ruination came because the servants neglected the importance of the tower; not because the watchmen themselves burned the vineyard.

Now, if you want to chuck all of that out then you're creating three major problems for yourself, both in general and with regard to the priesthood policy specifically.

First, if the priesthood policy was in fact a violation of God's will for the Church: how could the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the "only true Church", a church led by fifteen "prophets, seers, and revelators", be so spectacularly and colossally behind the curve that it was basically the last church of any significance that admitted black people into its priesthood?

Second, what's the point in following the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and its leadership, if there are other Christian churches--and even Restorationist sects (RLDS, Bickertonites, etc) that were obviously more capable of understanding and applying the Lord's will in a timely manner? If true priesthood doesn't lead you into a superior communion with God Himself, which in turn leads one to a higher standard of righteous conduct--then what, pray tell, is thepoint of having the "true priesthood" at all?

And third--if the Church can be led astray, then how do you know that it isn't Kimball/Benson/Hinckley/Monson et. al. who are "leading us astray" by debunking the explanations for the ban--or even by ending the ban--and that those policies won't be undone at some future time? If the Church leadership is expecting us to conform our behavior to standards that don't represent the mind and will of the Lord, then they're really little more than over-hyped dictators and there's no point in taking them seriously at all. Thus, the sum total of Mormonism is quickly reduced to "every man, a law unto himself". (Of course, the libertine wing of the Church will consider this argument a feature, not a bug.)

It is those who cling dogmatically to this doctrine that seem to have the biggest difficulty in accepting what the church has done with its last two statements on blacks and the priesthood.

Because we "dogmatists", as you like to call us, see the inevitable repercussions, and abhor them. While those who seem to prefer modern liberal theory to actually seeking out the mind of a God who may not think like themselves, will tend to welcome those repercussions because they believe it will help them to pervert LDS theology in order to proclaim a church and a god after their own image. (One sweeping over-generalization deserves another, don't you think?)

Nowhere are we commanded in scriptures to place our faith in an organization. We are to have faith in Christ. No where does it say in scriptures that we are to trust men, it says the opposite, cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh.

Sure; but if that "flesh" comes in the form of a divinely appointed servant of the Lord who is speaking His will, and you just don't want to hear it--good luck to you.

--Exodus 16:8: for that the Lord heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord.

--2 Peter 2:10: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

--D&C 1:38: What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

--D&C 121:16-17 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them. But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

A testimony of Christ is paramount, and prophets and apostles are not perfect; but the scriptures are clear: Christ, His Servants, and His Church are a package deal. If you're habitually sniping at Christ's servants or His church, then the god you are following is not Christ.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Just_A_Guy