Reaching out for support after reading the Essays

[The Folk Prophet]

You sure like to nitpick.

Lol ok, he said "too often leads".  Again, I see no evidence that masturbation "too often leads" to homosexuality, do you?  Where is the evidence for this statement?  This is a complete falsehood.  So yes, Kimball got this dead wrong - and that's okay.  Why is that so difficult for you to admit?  Prophets are not always right.  It's okay to disagree with statements in the Miracle of Forgiveness - you can still sustain him in his Prophetic calling.  I do.

 

This is not a "nitpick" thing. The difference in meaning is HUGE. And you can't prove he was wrong any more than I can prove he was right. And even one time is "too often". So I'm thinking "dead wrong" is a bit faulty.

 

I'd have no trouble at all admitting that he was wrong if there was evidence to the contrary. None. But I do have trouble with accusations of "dead wrong" when there is no evidence of that either.

 

My contention is not, nor has it ever been, that prophets are never wrong. What I have a problem with is taking any ideas we're uncomfortable with and writing them off as wrong just to suit our own myopic sensibilities.

 

I'm sorry to have rocked the thread by my less than specific statements.  Perhaps "wrong" was the wrong term. :) What I meant to say was that in some of Kimball's writings, like the Miracle of Forgiveness, he was rather, I don't know, perfectionistic, rigid, or black and white about the subject.  And I think his writings contributed to a lot of misunderstandings and unnecessary shame about sexual feelings and actions.  I remember reading once that even Kimball himself thought  he had been too harsh with gay people in his earlier writings.  I'll add too, that I've spent long hours studying these writings and asking Father to please help me understand and I believe my spirit communications about sexual feelings, development, and behaviors feel a little more balanced than what I felt reading Kimball on the subject.  But this is just me as I try to understand the truth about these things so I can guide my little family.

 

Please know. I love president Kimball.  He was the prophet of my youth.  My point was to illustrate that prophets are humans.  That's all.  And that sometimes their efforts to communicate are flawed. And I meant to express that I personally don't need to idealize them in order to follow them. How many times do the prophets in the BofM asking us not to condemn the writings because of their imperfections?  It's the same thing.  I don't condemn any of them for their imperfection.  But I don't deny the imperfection either.

 

This explanation of Misshalfway's is a prime example of wherein we can certainly not see eye to eye with a prophet and still support and sustain them. It seems fairly clear that some prophets (Brigham-cough-Young) were less tactful than others.

 

Seeing a prophet's communication ability as weak or without diplomacy is viable. But it does not make their words wrong.

 

President Kimball quotes David O. Mackay "Your virture is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives."  In my opinion, this is a harmful statement.

 

Would you rather have your child die a teenager, knowing they were a virgin and kept the Law of Chastity, or have them live a full life that was spotted with LoC violations?  Perhaps I'm interpeting it wrong, but to me it seems that President Kimball and President Mackay are suggesting the former would be better - and I find that crazy... but  I still sustain them as prophets!

 

What kind of loving parent would prefer their child end up losing their salvation?

 

Ridiculous. Of course I'd prefer my child gains eternal life over a long life of illicit sexual trysts. That doesn't mean or translate in any way to a hope that said person will die young. Duh. Of course not. How anyone can think that anyone else would believe that based off of such a concept is astounding.

 

The key is "if". Worse case scenario. If you had to choose. One or the other. Which is better. The answer is obvious. Anyone who chooses other than eternal salvation for their children would be shamefully foolish. But who has to choose this? No one, that's who.

 

How is this sort of teaching any different than plucking an eye out if if offends you. That it's better to go through life maimed than to be cast into the fire? You want to take a run at the Savior next for his harmful teachings?

 

I could, of course, further debate that the way this idea was taught seems to be purposeful twisted to suit agendas, but it would be useless to do so. Those determined to see harm will find harm. Suicide culture blather and all that. As if that was what he meant in any way shape and form. Not a chance.

 

But that's irrelevant. Even if his method of teaching lacked finesse -- even if it is "harmful" to certain psyches, it still, point blank, remains doctrinally correct. A person should be more concerned about their salvation than even their physical lives.

[StallionMcBeastly]

Stallion-

I don't know about homosexuality; but I believe there are clinical studies out there to the effect that masturbation in conjunction with porn use re-wires the brain for addiction in a way that porn use alone does not. Sexual orientation is apparently the result of a complex stew of many, many factors. Who are any of us to say that masturbation doesn't play a part? What percentage of "practicing" homosexuals have never masturbated, do you suppose?

As for preserving virtue: first, the notion that Kimball is saying Mormons should resist rape even unto death is just plain wrong. Kimball himself points out, in MOF, that there is no fault where there is no consent.

Second; I know it has become fashionable to gloss over the temporal and eternal consequences of pre- or extramarital sex--but, working in the family law/child welfare legal world and also being in an LDS 12-step program for porn/sex addiction; I can tell you that the temporal and spiritual implications are real, horrendous, and not easily erased.

I believe Misshalfway is correct in suggesting that Kimball later expressed a wish that he had softened the overall tone of MOF; but I think a review of his ministry shows that his problem wasn't that he didn't understand the sins he condemned (or the people who committed them)--it's that he understood them far more clearly than most of us do today.

Thanks for your thoughts, JAG.

I agree with you - masturbation in conjuction with porn can rewire the physiology of the brain.  It causes 3 main changes to the physiology of the brain (according to what I've learned in my anatomy and physiology classes).  1) desentization - the normal dopamine levels in the brain stop being as effective, i.e. activities that would normally make you feel happy start to feel less desireable. 2) sensitization - new neuronal pathways form that make stimulation easier and easier. 3) hypofrontality - the prefontal area in your brain (the area that helps you interpret consequences/make decisions) becomes smaller.  There's a few more that I can't recall.  It's very interesting.  Fortunately, these areas of the brain have high spasticity, which enables them to reform to their former physiology (althought this is a slow process).  My Professor was passionate about this topic and I found it absolutely fascinating.

 

Clearly, masturbation can cause changes in the brain.  I'm definitely not arguing that.  see no evidence to support that masturbation leads to homosexuality, as President Kimball stated.  This must have been President Kimball's opinion since he did not provide any data.

[StallionMcBeastly]

 

This is not a "nitpick" thing. The difference in meaning is HUGE. And you can't prove he was wrong any more than I can prove he was right. And even one time is "too often". So I'm thinking "dead wrong" is a bit faulty.

 

I'd have no trouble at all admitting that he was wrong if there was evidence to the contrary. None. But I do have trouble with accusations of "dead wrong" when there is no evidence of that either.

 

My contention is not, nor has it ever been, that prophets are never wrong. What I have a problem with is taking any ideas we're uncomfortable with and writing them off as wrong just to suit our own myopic sensibilities.

 

 

This explanation of Misshalfway's is a prime example of wherein we can certainly not see eye to eye with a prophet and still support and sustain them. It seems fairly clear that some prophets (Brigham-cough-Young) were less tactful than others.

 

Seeing a prophet's communication ability as weak or without diplomacy is viable. But it does not make their words wrong.

 

 

What kind of loving parent would prefer their child end up losing their salvation?

 

Ridiculous. Of course I'd prefer my child gains eternal life over a long life of illicit sexual trysts. That doesn't mean or translate in any way to a hope that said person will die young. Duh. Of course not. How anyone can think that anyone else would believe that based off of such a concept is astounding.

 

The key is "if". Worse case scenario. If you had to choose. One or the other. Which is better. The answer is obvious. Anyone who chooses other than eternal salvation for their children would be shamefully foolish. But who has to choose this? No one, that's who.

 

How is this sort of teaching any different than plucking an eye out if if offends you. That it's better to go through life maimed than to be cast into the fire? You want to take a run at the Savior next for his harmful teachings?

 

I could, of course, further debate that the way this idea was taught seems to be purposeful twisted to suit agendas, but it would be useless to do so. Those determined to see harm will find harm. Suicide culture blather and all that. As if that was what he meant in any way shape and form. Not a chance.

 

But that's irrelevant. Even if his method of teaching lacked finesse -- even if it is "harmful" to certain psyches, it still, point blank, remains doctrinally correct. A person should be more concerned about their salvation than even their physical lives.

 

 

 

 

What I don't understand is that you seem to accept what President Kimball said regarding masturbation and homosexuality despite there any evidence to believe it?  This is most certainly Presidnet Kimball's opinion.  Perhaps he had anectodatal evidence to believe it?  I do no know.  I do see evidence contrary to his statement, however.  Let's be honest - most men have/do masturbate (I'm speaking of non-lds men) and the vast majority are heterosexual.  I'm curiuos as to what would prompt him to believe masturbation often leads to masturbation with others of the same sex, and therefore homosexuality? 

 

Also, regarding law of chastity violation and losing slavation etc.... my scenario mentioned nothing of losing salvation.  I should clarify. There are 2 situations:  a situation in which one child would die a young virgin, and another situation in which the child would live a full life while having, on a few occasions, violated the law of chastity.  IMO President Kimball's writings suggest that the former would be preferable.  I certainly disagree.

"There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity -- realizing that chastity is of more value than anything else in all the world." -Heber J. Grant (quoted in Miracle of Forgiveness).

From reading the book, I got the impression that losing chastity = losing virginity.  Maybe others read it another way.

Edited December 16, 2014 by StallionMcBeastly

[omegaseamaster75]

Then why do you continue to deny that it was, and is, the doctrine of the Church that black people of African descent were not allowed to hold the Priesthood or participate in temple rites between the mid-1800s and 1978? You contradict yourself.

 

 

I have not even the least little idea of what you are trying to illustrate with the above. In neither case is the term "doctrine" or "policy" defined.

 

 

Policy = action

Doctrine = teaching

 

If I understand you correctly, your claim is that the Church never taught that those of black African descent were not allowed to hold the Priesthood or participate in temple rites. Your claim, rather, is that the Church simply had a policy to that effect.

 

This is simply false. TFP has already provided a few quotations establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the very highest leaders of the Church, even the president himself, taught this doctrine. It was not "mere policy".

 

Consider: Policy is set by Church leaders as seems them good. Why would President Kimball have been required to receive divine revelation to change this practice? If the doctrine were "mere policy", as you insist, a simple letter from the First Presidency would have sufficed.

 

 

TFP has done a bang-up job of posting a few such quotes. A word to the wise is sufficient.

I dont deny that it was taught that blacks could not hold the priesthood.....I am not sure how I can be more clear in what I have stated....

Just to be clear Doctrine= unchanged truth as per what I had previously

Policy = changeable depending on the political climate/political leanings of the church.

Does God change? I think that he does not his doctrines are eternal, you and TFP seem to want to hold on to this idea that denying the priesthood to blacks was doctrinal when in fact it is not...

Guess what guys sometimes it's OK to be wrong

[omegaseamaster75]

Neil L. Andersen:

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been

[omegaseamaster75]

LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine":

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. 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.

Show me the official declaration produced by Brigham Young and the council of the 12 stating that denial of the priesthood to Blacks came by revelation.

You guys can stick your heads in the sand if you want but there is a reason that the official essay released by the church specifically says POLICY and not doctrine.

Edited December 16, 2014 by omegaseamaster75

[omegaseamaster75]

Do prophets make mistakes......even big ones? Heck D&C is mostly telling Joseph smith to repent

Moses disobeyed God's instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, "Must we fetch you water out of this rock?" He was chastized by the Lord afterward. (Numbers 20:)

Joshua was deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon when they claimed to come from a far country so they could get a peace accord with Joshua. Then the Israelites found that instead of living a long distant away, that people from Gibeon lived among them. (Joshua 9:)

Gordon B. Hinckley was deceived by Mark Hofmann, who had done so in order to obtain money. Hofmann was even responsible for the death of some people. After some investigation, he was discovered and sentenced.

Gideon repeatedly asked the Lord for signs even though the Lord has said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." (Judges 7:; Matthew 12:39)

Nathan told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project. The Lord later told Nathan that such was not His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by another. (2 Samuel 7:)

Jonah felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. (Jonah 4:1)

So Jonah the prophet had some personal prejudices is it to far to think that Brigham Young had some as well?

[estradling75]

Do prophets make mistakes......even big ones? Heck D&C is mostly telling Joseph smith to repent

Moses disobeyed God's instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, "Must we fetch you water out of this rock?" He was chastized by the Lord afterward. (Numbers 20:)

Joshua was deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon when they claimed to come from a far country so they could get a peace accord with Joshua. Then the Israelites found that instead of living a long distant away, that people from Gibeon lived among them. (Joshua 9:)

Gordon B. Hinckley was deceived by Mark Hofmann, who had done so in order to obtain money. Hofmann was even responsible for the death of some people. After some investigation, he was discovered and sentenced.

Gideon repeatedly asked the Lord for signs even though the Lord has said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." (Judges 7:; Matthew 12:39)

Nathan told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project. The Lord later told Nathan that such was not His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by another. (2 Samuel 7:)

Jonah felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. (Jonah 4:1)

So Jonah the prophet had some personal prejudices is it to far to think that Brigham Young had some as well?

 

 

None of those flaws that they had.. ended up costing hundreds even thousands of people to be denied the blessing of the temple and the Lord.

 

The only one that even comes close was Jonah and the Lord clearly saved Nineveh in spite and some might say by using the bias of Jonah.

 

To say that God would allow his prophets (aka Brigham Young in this case) weakness to condemn so many others (as the ban on Blacks would do if not of God) denies what the scriptures teach.   And it denies Brigham Young's own testimony of the Lord quickly rebuking him and resetting the path that he (Brigham) had put the saints on because of his own weaknesses.

[The Folk Prophet]

Guess what guys sometimes it's OK to be wrong

 

Haha. That's rich coming from someone like you...

 

 

...said the pot to the kettle...

 

uh...self quote...

 

I think it fair to point out that there have been various statements made that "doctrines do not change!" over the years. (Boyd K. Packer was particularly fond of this sort of declaration). Therefore, it has to be conceded that there is a way of defining "doctrine" that excludes the priesthood ban.

 

Did you not bother to read this ^?

[The Folk Prophet]

What I don't understand is that you seem to accept what President Kimball said regarding masturbation and homosexuality despite there any evidence to believe it?

 

Says who? I don't claim it true or false. Other's are claiming him "wrong about sex". I'm simply asking for evidence to support that claim. Give me some viable evidence other than opinions and I'll gladly accept it. I have no stake in the matter whatever. You're assuming a lot about my attitudes and beliefs.

 

Perhaps he had anectodatal evidence to believe it?

 

Likely. But that's not proof. It doesn't prove him wrong either.

 

The issue, really, is that if the idea is going to be used to support an argument that prophet's can be wrong (something that no one is arguing against, frankly) then it better be provably wrong.

 

Frankly it would make a lot more sense to be using the quotes from former prophets and apostles about blacks and the priesthood that have been disavowed. Of course, the church disavowing them doesn't prove them wrong. Just unsupported by the church. But...at least you'd have a valid leg to stand on in the argument.

 

You'd do even better with the Adam/God theory or people living on the moon or something.

 

Kimball was wrong on sex is a hard thing to sell as support for the position though. Particularly when the core principle being taught (moral cleanliness, chastity, virtue) is rock-solid doctrine, even if he happened to get a detail a bit askew from factual reality.

 

From reading the book, I got the impression that losing chastity = losing virginity.

 

You're reading comprehension suffers from major bias.

 

Virtue/chastity is not about the physical act of sex. In point of fact, having sex is a commandment. Keeping our virtue is based on how and when we act -- within the bounds set by the Lord.

 

I'm still waiting for you to address the Savior teaching us to cut our hands off and gouge out our eyes.

[The Folk Prophet]

The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

 

This was true in spades concerning blacks not holding the priesthood prior to '78. So...interesting, right?

[The Folk Prophet]

Do prophets make mistakes......even big ones? Heck D&C is mostly telling Joseph smith to repent

Moses disobeyed God's instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, "Must we fetch you water out of this rock?" He was chastized by the Lord afterward. (Numbers 20:)

Joshua was deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon when they claimed to come from a far country so they could get a peace accord with Joshua. Then the Israelites found that instead of living a long distant away, that people from Gibeon lived among them. (Joshua 9:)

Gordon B. Hinckley was deceived by Mark Hofmann, who had done so in order to obtain money. Hofmann was even responsible for the death of some people. After some investigation, he was discovered and sentenced.

Gideon repeatedly asked the Lord for signs even though the Lord has said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." (Judges 7:; Matthew 12:39)

Nathan told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project. The Lord later told Nathan that such was not His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by another. (2 Samuel 7:)

Jonah felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. (Jonah 4:1)

So Jonah the prophet had some personal prejudices is it to far to think that Brigham Young had some as well?

 

omega...

 

You cannot find, nor will you find anywhere in any of the statements made by any of us, ever, a comment that claims prophets never make mistakes.

 

So what are you harping on about?

[Guest]

My reference has the following credentials:  A.B. in history and an M.A. in philosophy. A Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Southern California and postdoctoral work at Columbia, Princeton, and Union Theological Seminary.

 

 

 

Beware the theologian lest he ruins your faith.

 

 

 

 

Just to be clear Doctrine= unchanged truth as per what I had previously

 

 

 

This is the source of your miscommunication with Vort.  This is the Catholic position on Doctrine - not the LDS.  The Catholic position stems from Revelation having been completed in the writings of John.  The LDS AoF declares that there are things that are still to be revealed.

 

Therefore, in the Catholic Magesterium, doctrine cannot change - merely the application/understanding of such doctrine can change.  In the LDS Church, doctrine CAN change by Revelation.

 

Now, Truth is Universal.  That cannot change.  Both Catholic and LDS hold this position.  But, as it is, only a God knows all Truth.  We, non-Gods, come by Truth line upon line, precept upon precept, all reliant upon Revelation... therefore, Doctrine is meted out through the Prophets in bits and pieces until we arrive at the Truth when all has come to pass (that would be when Christ comes again) and we see why God chose to reveal certain things at certain points in history.  Current doctrine can possibly undo a previous Doctrine as God chooses to reveal it - such as the case on the Priesthood Ban from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball... this is why the Catholics closed the canon - because changing doctrine led to confusion when they held that all Bishops held all the keys to the Kingdom and deposing Popes to place a Bishop sympathetic to a certain doctrine became an issue.  The LDS point to this as a lack of proper Priesthood authority.

 

Hope this makes sense.

[Just_A_Guy]

Show me the official declaration produced by Brigham Young and the council of the 12 stating that denial of the priesthood to Blacks came by revelation.

You guys can stick your heads in the sand if you want but there is a reason that the official essay released by the church specifically says POLICY and not doctrine.

So, God never has input into mere "policies"? I rather think not. Israel's exodus out of Egypt, when you get right down to it, was a "policy". So was the injunction that the Church gather to Utah; as well as the later injunction that Church members build Zion in their home countries; and no one is all hot-to-trot to excise God's role in those policies--because they aren't politically embarrassing.

Let's cut to the chase. Even accepting, arguendo, that the priesthood ban was mere policy: are you willing to grant that it was inspired policy? Or was the priesthood ban a "drift from [the church's] appointed course"? Because President Uchtdorf claims that the latter would be impossible.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

So, God never has input into mere "policies"? I rather think not. Israel's exodus out of Egypt, when you get right down to it, was a "policy". So was the injunction that the Church gather to Utah; as well as the later injunction that Church members build Zion in their home countries; and no one is all hot-to-trot to excise God's role in those policies--because they aren't politically embarrassing.

Let's cut to the chase. Even accepting, arguendo, that the priesthood ban was mere policy: are you willing to grant that it was inspired policy? Or was the priesthood ban a "drift from [the church's] appointed course"? Because President Uchtdorf claims that the latter would be impossible.

I am not willing to grant that it was inspired policy.

 

Big picture the ban on Blacks did not lead the church astray it just didn't we have come full circle, that is why it was allowed to happen. we can discuss the historical/political reasons of the time as to why the ban may have been put in place but lets not say that this was inspired.

[Vort]

I am not willing to grant that it was inspired policy.

And this, in a nutshell, is the entire issue.

[estradling75]

I am not willing to grant that it was inspired policy.

 

Big picture the ban on Blacks did not lead the church astray it just didn't we have come full circle, that is why it was allowed to happen. we can discuss the historical/political reasons of the time as to why the ban may have been put in place but lets not say that this was inspired.

 

By pulling God out of the question (which you do once it is not inspired)  Then you ignore JAG's Comment that President McKay wanted to removed it but was told no.

 

You also make so that Brigham Young and every prophet to Kimball stand as obstacles to the eternal salvation to hundreds if not thousands of people.  While God can and will extend mercy to those that could not partake due to no fault of there own, that is a text book definition of being lead astray.  In the bible Christ full on condemned Leaders who caused and otherwise blocked the members from coming to him. This would be no different, if they did it without the Lord backing that is exactly what they did.

[paulsifer42]

How do you reconcile that with doctrines of other churches? Do you mean that you define "doctrine" uniquely for the LDS church? But for every other church it means what it means - per the dictionary? Just for our church it has some mystical, elusive neo-meaning?

 

How very confusing.

 

Maybe for some.

[mdfxdb]

I am not willing to grant that it was inspired policy.

 

Big picture the ban on Blacks did not lead the church astray it just didn't we have come full circle, that is why it was allowed to happen. we can discuss the historical/political reasons of the time as to why the ban may have been put in place but lets not say that this was inspired.

Omega  = wrong.

 

I am with you up to this point.  Policy as promulgated in the handbooks is indeed inspired.  We are not always given the provenience of those policies, but they are church policy, and approved by the prophet, and the twelve.  Sometimes they require divine inspiration/intervention to change sometimes not.  However those policies are not doctrine.  

 

There was indeed a policy to prevent blacks from holding the priesthood.  It was not doctrine.  Current church statements point to the fact that it was indeed a policy.  Past statements to the effect that it was doctrine, or because some perceived that it was taught as doctrine does not make it doctrine.  

[mdfxdb]

I do believe that doctrine does not change.  There are no new doctrines.  Doctrine has not changed, nor does it change.  We however are incapable of fully comprehending complete doctrine, and it therefore needs to be revealed to us little by little.  We consider these bits and pieces "new", but in fact they are not.

 

Our implementations of doctrine are subject to policy, such policy is often divinely inspired.  

 

I do think that previous prophets have stated their opinions as doctrine, or have used the words doctrine and policy interchangeably.  Because prophets put their pants on one leg at a time just like me, they are prone to mistakes.  They are responsible for those mistakes.  

[Just_A_Guy]

I am not willing to grant that it was inspired policy.

Big picture the ban on Blacks did not lead the church astray it just didn't we have come full circle, that is why it was allowed to happen. we can discuss the historical/political reasons of the time as to why the ban may have been put in place but lets not say that this was inspired.

Well, per Pres. Uchtdorf,

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

So there are two options here: "on course", or "failing to fulfill its divine destiny".

Was the Church fulfilling its divine destiny when it declined to extend priesthood and temple blessings to blacks? Was it drifting from its appointed course?

Or could there be a third option--what might be called, in legal parlance, "harmless error"?

Was the priesthood ban harmless error?

And, is the Church's current priesthood ban against deceased Jews, uninspired? Or just the former priesthood ban against living blacks? How are the two bans really different, theologically speaking?

Edited December 16, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I do believe that doctrine does not change.  There are no new doctrines.  Doctrine has not changed, nor does it change.  We however are incapable of fully comprehending complete doctrine, and it therefore needs to be revealed to us little by little.  We consider these bits and pieces "new", but in fact they are not.

 

Our implementations of doctrine are subject to policy, such policy is often divinely inspired.  

 

I do think that previous prophets have stated their opinions as doctrine, or have used the words doctrine and policy interchangeably.  Because prophets put their pants on one leg at a time just like me, they are prone to mistakes.  They are responsible for those mistakes.  

 

I don't get this...

 

Can you tell me how you relate Doctrine and Revelation?

[mdfxdb]

I don't get this...

 

Can you tell me how you relate Doctrine and Revelation?

There may be doctrine which is yet to be revealed, or we may have current doctrine which is incomplete, and is to be added upon.  This can only come through revelation.  

Edited December 16, 2014 by mdfxdb

[The Folk Prophet]

Apparently mdfxdb has another unique meaning for the word doctrine. Great. That'll really help settle the issue.

 

So much talking past each other.

 

Not much use in that, really.

[StallionMcBeastly]

I'd have no trouble at all admitting that he was wrong if there was evidence to the contrary. None. But I do have trouble with accusations of "dead wrong" when there is no evidence of that either.

So.... your position is you dont know if he is right or wrong? You're unwilling to say?

Logic tells us that we do not accept something as truth unless there is evidence suggesting that it is fact. Such a statement as Kimball's should not be made without providing evidence to support it. (At least if you want to be taken seriously). Jump through all the hoops you want, twist it all you want, but his statement regarding mmasturbation and homosexuality is wrong.