Reaching out for support after reading the Essays

[mdfxdb]

My point is that they do.

 

Those who insist that the Church "got it wrong" with regards to blacks and the Priesthood are themselves wrong, and are skirting the filthy edges of apostasy for the sake of their political hobby horse.

But you are saying they don't.  You are saying that if I say "the church was wrong with regards to blacks and the Priesthood", then I am skirting the filthy edges of apostasy. 

 

Either they got it wrong or they didn't.  Much like how the "translation" of the Book of Mormon is portrayed.  

 

calling a spade a spade does not an apostate make.

 

Policy is not doctrine.  Regardless of what has been stated by previous prophets.  Their pronouncements are only doctrinal when they are speaking as the prophet.  Those doctrines are carefully recorded and canonized.  

[Vort]

We have been down this road, and I take offense to the idea that I may be "skirting" the filthy edges of apostasy, because I am not.

When you deny the inspired leadership of the Church, that is by very definition apostasy, at least my understanding of it.

 

We have a disagreement on historical facts, and how God speaks through our leaders and leads our church.

How can we disagree on "historical facts"? Which "facts" do we disagree on?

 

And exactly how do you think God speaks through our leaders? Anything you agree with is from God, and anything you don't like is just men being men?

 

From a historical standpoint denying Blacks the priesthood looks/is perceived as a negative on the church and the supporting "doctrine" that went with that policy.

Why is that any part of a discussion of truth? Truth is not historical perception.

 

As previously shown in the most current essay released by the church which we have been over, they have disavowed any policies

This is a flat-out falsehood. You are telling an untruth, omegaseamaster. Stop it. The policies denying those of black African descent the Priesthood and temple blessings have never been disavowed, any more than the law of Moses was disavowed by Christ.

 

and doctrinal claims as to the reasons why Blacks were denied the priesthood (they say theories).

In this one thing, you are correct. All such explanations have been disavowed as revealed doctrine. (Which, by the way, does not mean they are necessarily false, or that the Church is declaring them to be false. They simply are not revealed doctrine and ought not to be taught as such. They are the theories of men, and can be thought to have as much chance of being correct as any other theories of men.)

 

You can't get any closer to "we were wrong" than that.

What an absurd claim. Yes, you can get a very great deal closer than that to "we were wrong". The Church leaders could say, "We were wrong." They didn't say that.

[Vort]

But you are saying they don't.

Wrong. I am saying they *do*. When our Church leaders "get it wrong", they will say so. They have not said nor suggested any such thing regarding the Priesthood question.

 

 

You are saying that if I say "the church was wrong with regards to blacks and the Priesthood", then I am skirting the filthy edges of apostasy. 

Yep. That is indeed what I am saying.

 

 

Either they got it wrong or they didn't.  Much like how the "translation" of the Book of Mormon is portrayed. 

Agreed. Either they got it wrong or they didn't. And clearly, they didn't,.

 

 

calling a spade a spade does not an apostate make.

Correct. But denying the revelatory leadership of the Church and making false and unfounded claims against Church leaders does indeed an apostate make.

 

 

Policy is not doctrine.  Regardless of what has been stated by previous prophets.  Their pronouncements are only doctrinal when they are speaking as the prophet.  Those doctrines are carefully recorded and canonized.  

Ignoring for the moment the inconsistency of your comparison, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. This is like discussing Latin grammar and you suddenly digress into a discussion of earthworm digestion.

[Guest]

Maybe unimportant to a true believer like you.

 

To those who have not spent the time researching and learning and building faith it is a big deal.  Most (the masses) do not take time to do independent research.  Most rely heavily on what they are spoon fed in SS.  So it is important to get it right.  

 

 

I'm going to repeat this again here because it TRULY applies... something I learned from Catholic School - Beware the theologian/academian lest he ruin your faith... especially to a "not true believer" like you (I don't understand what a true believer is... I mean, there's a false believer?)

 

Okay, as to your statement above... you got it completely opposite.  HOW Joseph Smith translated the plates is not where the faith needs to be built upon.  The doctrine is not the HOW... the doctrine is the WHY.  Therefore, what you need to build faith on is that God restored the gospel through Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon.  How it transpired is irrelevant.  Once you build that faith in the restored gospel (by applying the principles of the restored gospel in your life), then whatever historical detail that comes out of the translation process will not tear that faith down.

 

This is the exact same process you apply in the reading of Genesis and the Garden of Eden.  You first build the faith that God created earth for a purpose.  That's the principle.  HOW it got created is irrelevant.  So that, when the Bible says on the first day God did this, and the second day God did that... it doesn't have to be a testament of some historical scientific fact.  Rather, it is a testament that every single thing on the planet is made so that man may exercise dominion over them.  Once you build that faith in the creation (by applying the principles of the gospel), then whatever historical detail that comes out of scientific discovery will not tear that faith down.

Edited December 18, 2014 by anatess

[Vort]

I'm going to repeat this again here because it TRULY applies... something I learned from Catholic School - Beware the theologian/academian lest he ruin your faith...

It's worth noting that in the traditional sense of the word, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't have theologians. We do not have a theology at all, in the traditional sense. Our beliefs are not determined by committee or through careful and scholarly analysis of texts. We have a revealed religion. This is why our living prophet has always been and will always be more important to us than the scriptures.

[omegaseamaster75]

We are clearly not reading the English language the same way:

 

"Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban"

 

there is a reason that it is worded this way.....policy not doctrine.

 

And to those who say that the Lord would not allow his Prophets to lead the church astray as I have said before we were not led astray:

 

As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations”¹⁷ seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. The Book of Mormon declared that the gospel message of salvation should go forth to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”¹⁸ While there were no limits on whom the Lord invited to “partake of his goodness” through baptism,¹⁹ the priesthood and temple restrictions created significant barriers, a point made increasingly evident as the Church spread in international locations with diverse and mixed racial heritages.

[The Folk Prophet]

We are clearly not reading the English language the same way:

 

"Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban"

 

there is a reason that it is worded this way.....policy not doctrine.

 

You keep harping on this like anyone really cares what it's called. Who cares? Call it policy all you want. It means nothing.

 

Another point I'd like to make however. There is only one person on the earth with the authority and right to define LDS doctrine. 1. Period. That is the prophet. A website put out by the church does not define doctrine. A church vote does not define doctrine. The prophet does.

 

So this whole use of a website as if it establishes the reality of what we're all supposed to believe doesn't really hold so much weight as you're putting to it. Certainly, the use of the word "policy" in a single sentence therein does not define it for the church. In point of fact, neither do to the statements by apostles such as Elder Packer when weighed against the words of a prophet.

 

The prophet, seer, and revelator has this right to define doctrine. It does not matter if it is his opinion. It does not matter if he is wrong. It is his right and his authority to do so and no one else's.

 

So when the first presidency comes out with an official statement, as we have shown, from whatever decade, stating the such-n-such is doctrine, I'm going to go with it being doctrine until the prophet, currently Pres. Monson, of course, says otherwise.

 

That's right. I'm trumping your unattributed website quote with the quote(s) of a prophet, seer and revelator.

[Just_A_Guy]

And to those who say that the Lord would not allow his Prophets to lead the church astray as I have said before we were not led astray:

 

As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations”¹⁷ seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. The Book of Mormon declared that the gospel message of salvation should go forth to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”¹⁸ While there were no limits on whom the Lord invited to “partake of his goodness” through baptism,¹⁹ the priesthood and temple restrictions created significant barriers, a point made increasingly evident as the Church spread in international locations with diverse and mixed racial heritages.

 

This seems to be a variant of Hillary Clinton's take on Benghazi:  What difference, at this point, does it make? 

 

To which I would reply:  If you're suggesting that the Church was acting in contravention of what God wanted but was simultaneously not "off-course" or "astray" based on the segments of the essay you cite above--it makes a HUGE difference.  The Church wasn't just making tactical decisions, as a matter of expediency, to focus its missionary efforts on locations where it might see the best results.  It was actively refusing priesthood and temple blessings to specific, identifiable individuals who sought them.  Your apologetic gives short shrift to the actual experiences of numerous individual black Mormons who repeatedly pleaded for priesthood/temple blessings and were denied them.  This is not a little thing, Omegaseamaster; this is the Church--under a succession of eleven different presidents and at least a hundred different apostles- willfully refusing to carry out its raison d'etre for a hundred and twenty years.

 

Over the long haul, the 1Pres/Q12 refusing the priesthood to a few thousand blacks maybe doesn't matter all that much.  But then again--over the long haul, Isaac Haight and William Dame engineering the massacre of 150 Arkansans doesn't matter all that much, either.  Does it? 

[jerome1232]

I am not convinced the terms are mutually exclusive.

I am convinced that we all have our unique idea's of what exactly doctrine and policy are and these unique idea's are muddying the waters.

In a loose sense doctrine really just means a teaching, or what is taught. But that is certainly not how we mean it. 

I would suggest doctrine means the Doctrine of Christ, it's the foundational message of Christ. The teachings we need to be saved and nothing more. In 3rd Nephi 11:37-40:

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

Another idea I've seen floated around is that doctrine must be found in the standard works, I would suggest that for a living prophets words to be considered doctrine in this sense we must canonize his words for them to become doctrine.

[omegaseamaster75]

You keep harping on this like anyone really cares what it's called. Who cares? Call it policy all you want. It means nothing.

 

Another point I'd like to make however. There is only one person on the earth with the authority and right to define LDS doctrine. 1. Period. That is the prophet. A website put out by the church does not define doctrine. A church vote does not define doctrine. The prophet does.

 

So this whole use of a website as if it establishes the reality of what we're all supposed to believe doesn't really hold so much weight as you're putting to it. Certainly, the use of the word "policy" in a single sentence therein does not define it for the church. In point of fact, neither do to the statements by apostles such as Elder Packer when weighed against the words of a prophet.

 

The prophet, seer, and revelator has this right to define doctrine. It does not matter if it is his opinion. It does not matter if he is wrong. It is his right and his authority to do so and no one else's.

 

So when the first presidency comes out with an official statement, as we have shown, from whatever decade, stating the such-n-such is doctrine, I'm going to go with it being doctrine until the prophet, currently Pres. Monson, of course, says otherwise.

 

That's right. I'm trumping your unattributed website quote with the quote(s) of a prophet, seer and revelator.

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng  souce of my unattributed quotes which I have posted earlier with links and citations. Quotes and annotations only seem to matter to you when you find a GA or Prophet who go you way however.

 

Resources

 

1. 2 Nephi 26:33. See also Acts 10:34-35; 17:26; Romans 2:11; 10:12; Galatians 3:28.
2. To facilitate involvement of Church members who do not speak the dominant language of the area in which they live, some congregations are organized among speakers of the same language (such as Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, or Tongan). In such cases, members can choose which congregation to attend.
3. At some periods of time, reflecting local customs and laws, there were instances of segregated congregations in areas such as South Africa and the U.S. South.
4. Historian’s Office General Church Minutes, Mar. 26, 1847, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, spelling and punctuation modernized.
5. “An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization,” 1^st Congress, 2^nd Sess., Chap. 3 (1790).
6. Elise Lemire, “Miscegenation”: Making Race in America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002); Peggy Pascoe, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Utah outlawed miscegenation between 1888 and 1963. See Patrick Mason, “The Prohibition of Interracial Marriage in Utah, 1888–1963,” Utah Historical Quarterly 76, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 108–131.
7. Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 347.
8. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896); Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
9. Brigham Young, Speeches Before the Utah Territorial Legislature, Jan. 23 and Feb. 5, 1852, George D. Watt Papers, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, transcribed from Pitman shorthand by LaJean Purcell Carruth; “To the Saints,” Deseret News, April 3, 1852, 42.
10. In the same session of the territorial legislature in which Brigham Young announced the priesthood ordination policy, the territorial legislature legalized black “servitude.” Brigham Young and the legislators perceived “servitude” to be a more humane alternative to slavery. Christopher B. Rich Jr., “The True Policy for Utah: Servitude, Slavery, and ‘An Act in Relation to Service,’” Utah Historical Quarterly 80, no.1 (Winter 2012): 54–74.
11. David M. Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 178–182, 360n20; Colin Kidd, The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600–2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
12. Stephen R. Haynes, Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
13. Margaret Blair Young, “‘The Lord’s Blessing Was with Us’: Jane Elizabeth Manning James, 1822–1908,” in Richard E. Turley Jr. and Brittany A. Chapman, eds., Women of Faith in the Latter Days, Volume Two, 1821–1845 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2012), 120–135.
14. Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, wrote in 1907 that the belief was “quite general” among Mormons that “the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest.” Yet this belief, he admitted, “is not the official position of the Church, [and is] merely the opinion of men.” Joseph Fielding Smith to Alfred M. Nelson, Jan. 31, 1907, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.
15. Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” BYU Studies 47, no. 2 (Spring 2008), 18-20; Marjorie Newton, Southern Cross Saints: The Mormons in Australia (Laie: Hawaii: The Institute for Polynesian Studies, Brigham Young University-Hawaii, 1991), 209-210. Even before this time, President George Albert Smith concluded that the priesthood ban did not apply to Filipino Negritos. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood,” 18-19.

    You are about to access: http://byustudies.byu.edu

    You are now leaving a website maintained by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We provide the link to this third party's website solely as a convenience to you. The linked site has its own terms of use, privacy policies, and security practices that differ from those on our website. By referring or linking you to this website, we do not endorse or guarantee the content, products, or services offered.

16. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” 21-22.
17. Matthew 28:19.
18. Mosiah 15:28; 1 Nephi 19:17.
19. 2 Nephi 26:23, 28.
20. Mark L. Grover, “Mormonism in Brazil: Religion and Dependency in Latin America,” (PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, 1985), 276-278. For a personal account of events in Brazil, see Helvecio Martins with Mark Grover, The Autobiography of Elder Helvecio Martins (Salt Lake City: Aspen Books, 1994), 64-68. For the conversions of Africans, see E. Dale LeBaron, ed., “All Are Alike unto God”: Fascinating Conversion Stories of African Saints (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1990); Pioneers in Africa: An Inspiring Story of Those Who Paved the Way (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Broadcasting, 2003).
21. Official Declaration 2.
22. Gordon B. Hinckley, “Priesthood Restoration,” Ensign, Oct. 1988, 70, available at ensign.lds.org. The impressions of others who were in the room have been compiled in Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” 54–59.
23. Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God” (CES Religious Educator's Symposium, Aug. 18, 1978); available at speeches.byu.edu.
24. Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Need for Greater Kindness,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2006, 58–61.
25. Acts 10:34.
26. 2 Nephi 26:33.

 

Oh and all the way at the bottom: The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission.

 

Lest we all be led astray by the learned man.

[omegaseamaster75]

 

Another point I'd like to make however. There is only one person on the earth with the authority and right to define LDS doctrine. 1. Period. That is the prophet. A website put out by the church does not define doctrine. A church vote does not define doctrine. The prophet does.

 

 

The prophet, seer, and revelator has this right to define doctrine. It does not matter if it is his opinion. It does not matter if he is wrong. It is his right and his authority to do so and no one else's.

 

So when the first presidency comes out with an official statement, as we have shown, from whatever decade, stating the such-n-such is doctrine, I'm going to go with it being doctrine until the prophet, currently Pres. Monson, of course, says otherwise.

 

That's right. I'm trumping your unattributed website quote with the quote(s) of a prophet, seer and revelator.

 D&C 28:13 explains “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith."  Since the Church was founded in 1830, new doctrine has been accepted six times. On every occasion, a three-step process was followed to add Official Doctrine:  It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.

Only then is it binding on the membership of the Church. The change will then be made to the body of accepted (canonized) scriptures. Those occasions are:

1. 1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church
2. 1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted
3. 1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price
4. 1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291)
5. 1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted
6. 1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)

This is the doctrine of the church....

[omegaseamaster75]

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

 

oh here is the link so you don't think I'm making it up:http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

 

This is how doctrine is established as outlined by the church not how TFP thinks we receive our doctrine.

[mdfxdb]

I clicked on the link.  Good read.  

 

Revelation is important, but does not always constitute doctrine.

 

I guess this is why all of Joseph Smith's revelations are not contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, and are not considered doctrine.

 

Clearly some will not believe that the POLICY of denying blacks the priesthood was not doctrine until President Monson states he had a revelation stating that it was not doctrine.

Edited December 18, 2014 by mdfxdb

[The Folk Prophet]

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng  souce of my unattributed quotes which I have posted earlier with links and citations. Quotes and annotations only seem to matter to you when you find a GA or Prophet who go you way however.

 

Resources

 

1. 2 Nephi 26:33. See also Acts 10:34-35; 17:26; Romans 2:11; 10:12; Galatians 3:28.
2. To facilitate involvement of Church members who do not speak the dominant language of the area in which they live, some congregations are organized among speakers of the same language (such as Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, or Tongan). In such cases, members can choose which congregation to attend.
3. At some periods of time, reflecting local customs and laws, there were instances of segregated congregations in areas such as South Africa and the U.S. South.
4. Historian’s Office General Church Minutes, Mar. 26, 1847, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, spelling and punctuation modernized.
5. “An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization,” 1^st Congress, 2^nd Sess., Chap. 3 (1790).
6. Elise Lemire, “Miscegenation”: Making Race in America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002); Peggy Pascoe, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Utah outlawed miscegenation between 1888 and 1963. See Patrick Mason, “The Prohibition of Interracial Marriage in Utah, 1888–1963,” Utah Historical Quarterly 76, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 108–131.
7. Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 347.
8. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896); Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
9. Brigham Young, Speeches Before the Utah Territorial Legislature, Jan. 23 and Feb. 5, 1852, George D. Watt Papers, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, transcribed from Pitman shorthand by LaJean Purcell Carruth; “To the Saints,” Deseret News, April 3, 1852, 42.
10. In the same session of the territorial legislature in which Brigham Young announced the priesthood ordination policy, the territorial legislature legalized black “servitude.” Brigham Young and the legislators perceived “servitude” to be a more humane alternative to slavery. Christopher B. Rich Jr., “The True Policy for Utah: Servitude, Slavery, and ‘An Act in Relation to Service,’” Utah Historical Quarterly 80, no.1 (Winter 2012): 54–74.
11. David M. Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 178–182, 360n20; Colin Kidd, The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600–2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
12. Stephen R. Haynes, Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
13. Margaret Blair Young, “‘The Lord’s Blessing Was with Us’: Jane Elizabeth Manning James, 1822–1908,” in Richard E. Turley Jr. and Brittany A. Chapman, eds., Women of Faith in the Latter Days, Volume Two, 1821–1845 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2012), 120–135.
14. Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, wrote in 1907 that the belief was “quite general” among Mormons that “the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest.” Yet this belief, he admitted, “is not the official position of the Church, [and is] merely the opinion of men.” Joseph Fielding Smith to Alfred M. Nelson, Jan. 31, 1907, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.
15. Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” BYU Studies 47, no. 2 (Spring 2008), 18-20; Marjorie Newton, Southern Cross Saints: The Mormons in Australia (Laie: Hawaii: The Institute for Polynesian Studies, Brigham Young University-Hawaii, 1991), 209-210. Even before this time, President George Albert Smith concluded that the priesthood ban did not apply to Filipino Negritos. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood,” 18-19.

    You are about to access: http://byustudies.byu.edu

    You are now leaving a website maintained by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We provide the link to this third party's website solely as a convenience to you. The linked site has its own terms of use, privacy policies, and security practices that differ from those on our website. By referring or linking you to this website, we do not endorse or guarantee the content, products, or services offered.

16. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” 21-22.
17. Matthew 28:19.
18. Mosiah 15:28; 1 Nephi 19:17.
19. 2 Nephi 26:23, 28.
20. Mark L. Grover, “Mormonism in Brazil: Religion and Dependency in Latin America,” (PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, 1985), 276-278. For a personal account of events in Brazil, see Helvecio Martins with Mark Grover, The Autobiography of Elder Helvecio Martins (Salt Lake City: Aspen Books, 1994), 64-68. For the conversions of Africans, see E. Dale LeBaron, ed., “All Are Alike unto God”: Fascinating Conversion Stories of African Saints (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1990); Pioneers in Africa: An Inspiring Story of Those Who Paved the Way (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Broadcasting, 2003).
21. Official Declaration 2.
22. Gordon B. Hinckley, “Priesthood Restoration,” Ensign, Oct. 1988, 70, available at ensign.lds.org. The impressions of others who were in the room have been compiled in Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” 54–59.
23. Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God” (CES Religious Educator's Symposium, Aug. 18, 1978); available at speeches.byu.edu.
24. Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Need for Greater Kindness,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2006, 58–61.
25. Acts 10:34.
26. 2 Nephi 26:33.

 

Oh and all the way at the bottom: The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission.

 

Lest we all be led astray by the learned man.

 

How is all this useful?

 

Who is this quoting: "Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban"

 

Who said it? Is it president Monson or another prophet? If not -- I stand by my trump.

[The Folk Prophet]

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

 

oh here is the link so you don't think I'm making it up:http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

 

This is how doctrine is established as outlined by the church not how TFP thinks we receive our doctrine.

 

Agreed. And not how omegawhatshisface thinks we receive our doctrine either.

 

The united voice of the First Presidency and Twelve. Which very nicely fits the quote given by the First Presidency in 1949 (re-quoting here for convenience):

 

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

 

On the flip-side, the web essays are not written by the First Presidency. So omegawhatshisface's interpretation of a single word therein is hardly convincing.

 

P.S. This "the prophet establishes doctrine" isn't TFP's made-up philosophy:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

 

In 1954, President J. Reuben Clark Jr., then a counselor in the First Presidency, explained how doctrine is promulgated in the Church and the preeminent role of the President of the Church. Speaking of members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he stated: “[We] should [bear] in mind that some of the General Authorities have had assigned to them a special calling; they possess a special gift; they are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, which gives them a special spiritual endowment in connection with their teaching of the people. They have the right, the power, and authority to declare the mind and will of God to his people, subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. Others of the General Authorities are not given this special spiritual endowment and authority covering their teaching; they have a resulting limitation, and the resulting limitation upon their power and authority in teaching applies to every other officer and member of the Church, for none of them is spiritually endowed as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Furthermore, as just indicated, the President of the Church has a further and special spiritual endowment in this respect, for he is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the whole Church.”

[mdfxdb]

"These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.⁴

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such."

Stealing part of the quote from the article, different emphasis added: "They have the right, the power, and authority to declare the mind and will of God to his people, subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. "

The THEY in this sentence directly refers to the apostles, and first presidency.  Granted the Prophet has veto power.  But this sentence speaks to the structure used for establishing doctrine, and scripture.   

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

 

If we believe what Joseph Smith taught about prophets and revelation, then added discernment is required.  This is why the revelatory process for doctrine is established with the 12 and the first presidency, so no one man can set doctrine and include it in our cannon of scripture.  Not every word spoken by a prophet is "ex cathedra" 

Let's not presume that President Monson is unaware of the distinction between policy and doctrine, nor what it says on the web-page regarding the POLICY, of blacks and the priesthood.  Those articles are a BIG DEAL, don't kid yourself into thinking the 12, and the first presidency haven't read them.

[jerome1232]

 

The united voice of the First Presidency and Twelve. Which very nicely fits the quote given by the First Presidency in 1949 (re-quoting here for convenience):

 

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

[Just_A_Guy]

Jerome, apart from your undue deference to prophetic authority (what could a prophet possibly know about what the Lord might have commanded, anyways?), you miss what seems to be emerging to be the fundamental point of this thread:

 

We're not interested in whether something's true.  We just want to know if it's doctrinal.

 

Please, try to keep up. 

Edited December 19, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[mdfxdb]

From an address by Elder Bruce R McConkie in 1978.

 

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

 

"It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject."

 

Point to me the revelation/scripture which states the doctrine of Blacks are not to have the priesthood.  If there was, then it is superceded by the 1978 declaration, any statements to the contrary are trumped by the official declaration of the first presidency, which has been in our canon of scripture ever since. 

 

I have looked very hard through D&C, the Book of Mormon, the Bible.  I can't seem to find the 1949 statement anywhere...

 

From the statements on LDS.org:

 

"Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.¹⁶"  Reference 16: Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” 21-22.

 

It is possible that Brigham Young received revelation restricting Blacks from the Priesthood, however it was not doctrine.  It was the policy of the church.  It is apparent in light of newer revelation that the bretheren in 1949 got it wrong, and so did Brigham Young.  Wrong because they let people believe it was doctrinal.  They spoke with limited understanding and without light and knowledge which we now posess. 

[jerome1232]

So you are saying in 1977 it was doctrine, but in 1978 it was not.

Why can something not be both doctrine and policy?

Edited December 19, 2014 by jerome1232

[mdfxdb]

I'm saying it never was doctrine.  only policy

 

and yes something could be both doctrine and policy

[mdfxdb]

Doctrine:  Plural Marriage

Policy: don't do it

Doctrine: law of consecration

Policy: don't do it

[jerome1232]

I'm saying it never was doctrine.  only policy

 

and yes something could be both doctrine and policy

Was the first presidency then intentionally misleading in 1949?

Law of Consecration is not in affect? Why am I covenanted to live it?

Edited December 19, 2014 by jerome1232

[omegaseamaster75]

Was the first presidency then intentionally misleading in 1949?

Law of Consecration is not in affect? Why am I covenanted to live it?

contrary to popular belief they did not lead the church astray, see the quote by Bruce R Mcconkie posted above, limited light limited understanding

[jerome1232]

I fail to see how the statement made in 1949 contradicts current revelation, so why do you discard it? Can you explain how the statement that the priesthood ban was a commandment straight from God contradicts any modern revelation.