Noah's Flood

[Rob Osborn]

Another assumption, or attack, by secularism is their questioning or mocking and laughing at water covering Mt. Everest. Literal flood adherents though realize and know that mountains and mountain chains like Mt. Everest arose or uplifted from the ocean floor after the flood. The flood waters are actually still upon the earth, it's just that now we have ocean trenches and canyons and mountains and a place for those waters to go that we're formed after the flood.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[BJ64]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

We have never been told why President Young instituted the Priesthood ban, but we can be sure that it required a revelation to lift the ban. 

I don’t know if we can be sure of that. The church has essentially said that there was no doctrinal reason for the ban therefore it must have been a policy decision by Brigham Young. That being the case the policy could have been changed without a revelation. 

I think the ban could have been lifted at any time but I suspect it was not lifted until it was because white members of the church would not have been prepared to accept the change had it been done earlier. Perhaps if the ban had been lifted in the fifties or sixties white members would have left the church in droves. I think the Lord was waiting for the hearts of white members to change before the go ahead was given. 

As late as 1967 Ezra Taft Benson remarked in general conference that the civil rights movement in America was a communist plot to overthrow the country. 

[BJ64]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I agree with you. It is beyond argument that more than a few Church leaders, including apostles, have accepted the "global flood" idea. If it makes me faithless to disbelieve that idea despite its implicit endorsement, I suppose I will just have to accept the label. (But for the record, I don't think I'm faithless.)

I think a lot of church leaders make statements based on their own assumptions which are not necessarily doctrinal. Even Bruce R. McConkie made a statement saying to forget what he had said on a certain topic because new revelation had been given he had been wrong. 

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

The church has essentially said that there was no doctrinal reason for the ban

This never happened. If you maintain it did, please cite the relevant source.

9 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

think the ban could have been lifted at any time but I suspect it was not lifted until it was because [etc.]

What you think or suspect in this matter is irrelevant. What is relevant is the counsel we have received to avoid speculating on this topic regarding things we don't know about. That is exactly what you are doing. Stop it.

[BJ64]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

This never happened. If you maintain it did, please cite the relevant source.

What you think or suspect in this matter is irrelevant. What is relevant is the counsel we have received to avoid speculating on this topic regarding things we don't know about. That is exactly what you are doing. Stop it.

Go read the gospel topic essay Race and the Priesthood. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by BJ64

[Just_A_Guy]

28 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I think a lot of church leaders make statements based on their own assumptions which are not necessarily doctrinal. Even Bruce R. McConkie made a statement saying to forget what he had said on a certain topic because new revelation had been given he had been wrong. 

McConkie’s “forget everything” statement is frequently taken out of context.  He made in response to specific statements he had previously made suggesting that blacks wouldn’t get the priesthood until the Millennium, and he limited his injunction to forgetting those things that did not jive with the current revelation.  

Allowing blacks to hold the priesthood in 1979 didn’t conflict with disallowing it in 1977; any more than gathering to Salt Lake in 1847 conflicted with gathering to Missouri in 1837.

Quote

As late as 1967 Ezra Taft Benson remarked in general conference that the civil rights movement in America was a communist plot to overthrow the country.

Civil rights was to Communism as Trumpism is to Putin’s Russia:  Not acting in collusion or receiving its marching orders from foreign interests; but receiving some measure of support from international actors who found the discord geopolitically useful.  The FBI didn’t just invent this stuff out of whole cloth—one of MLK’s lawyers really was a communist bundler.  King himself despised communism; but footage of American racial strife was used to good effect in propaganda videos across the Iron and Bamboo Curtains.

Quote

Go read the gospel topic essay Race and the Priesthood.

The essay actually says that the Church leadership concluded that a revelation was necessary to lift the ban.

We should also be careful about our terminology here.  Yes, the ban was not “doctrinal” in the sense of being rooted in ad hoc concerns rather than any eternal, immutable injunction.  But that does not mean it was not imposed in response to divine inspiration.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[BJ64]

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

This never happened. If you maintain it did, please cite the relevant source.

What you think or suspect in this matter is irrelevant. What is relevant is the counsel we have received to avoid speculating on this topic regarding things we don't know about. That is exactly what you are doing. Stop it.

Says a man who is involved in a thread which is speculation on how the flood may have occurred. 

[Vort]

55 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Go read the gospel topic essay Race and the Priesthood. 

Not good enough. I read it long ago, very probably before you did. Please quote the exact part that substantiates your (false) claim.

[Vort]

28 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Says a man who is involved in a thread which is speculation on how the flood may have occurred. 

1. A false allegation. I never speculated on how the flood may have occurred.

2. You are defying the specific counsel of our leaders NOT to engage in speculation on this topic. Stop it.

[BJ64]

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

1. A false allegation. I never speculated on how the flood may have occurred.

2. You are defying the specific counsel of our leaders NOT to engage in speculation on this topic. Stop it.

You may not have speculated, but the whole thread is filled with speculation on the flood. 

[BJ64]

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not good enough. I read it long ago, very probably before you did. Please quote the exact part that substantiates your (false) claim.

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

 

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

 

The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.

 

Soon after the revelation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.”

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

 

The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons” and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous--regardless of race --is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

 

Well, that pretty much sums up what I was saying that there is no accepted doctrinal reason for the ban. It was a product of the racial and cultural attitudes af the day and like I also said I believe the Lord did not inspire leaders to lift the ban until much of that racial unrest had been settled. 

 

You may have been the first person on earth to have read the essay but I have studied it extensively and nearly have it memorized. 

[Vort]

28 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

You may not have speculated, but the whole thread is filled with speculation on the flood. 

As far as I know, our leaders have never asked us to avoid speculating about Noah's flood. They have specifically counseled against speculating about reasons behind the Priesthood ban.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Well, that pretty much sums up what I was saying that there is no accepted doctrinal reason for the ban.

Ah. Shifting the goal posts. Not honest, BJ46, though on this topic that appears to be your modus operandi. Obviously there is no "accepted doctrinal reason", since the Church has never announced one and in fact has said "we don't know why the ban was put in place". This is a great deal different from your original, dishonest claim:

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

The church has essentially said that there was no doctrinal reason for the ban therefore it must have been a policy decision by Brigham Young.

This is a lie. The Church has never said any such thing.

12 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

It was a product of the racial and cultural attitudes af the day and like I also said I believe the Lord did not inspire leaders to lift the ban until much of that racial unrest had been settled.

Another misleading, dishonest statement. Your theorizing suppositions are specifically counter to the counsel of our leaders, and I believe are lies.

13 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

You may have been the first person on earth to have read the essay but I have studied it extensively and nearly have it memorized. 

And yet, for all of your self-proclaimed memorization expertise, you are utterly unable to interpret it correctly, instead infesting its meaning with your own biased, twisted speculations.

[BJ64]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

As far as I know, our leaders have never asked us to avoid speculating about Noah's flood. They have specifically counseled against speculating about reasons behind the Priesthood ban.

Where is that recorded?

However I have not speculated on the reason for the ban. I have referenced the essay in saying that there is no accepted doctrinal reason for the ban and that it came about as a result of the racial and cultural attitudes of the day. 

[BJ64]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Ah. Shifting the goal posts. Not honest, BJ46, though on this topic that appears to be your modus operandi. Obviously there is no "accepted doctrinal reason", since the Church has never announced one and in fact has said "we don't know why the ban was put in place". This is a great deal different from your original, dishonest claim:

This is a lie. The Church has never said any such thing.

Another misleading, dishonest statement. Your theorizing suppositions are specifically counter to the counsel of our leaders, and I believe are lies.

And yet, for all of your self-proclaimed memorization expertise, you are utterly unable to interpret it correctly, instead infesting its meaning with your own biased, twisted speculations.

I think you need to read it again. 

[BJ64]

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

Here it is again. No accepted doctrinal reason for the ban. My initial statement saying that the church has essentially said there was no doctrinal reason for the ban is in part based on this very statement. 

[BJ64]

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue forthe legalization of black “servitude” in theTerritory of Utah. 

 

There it is again. The ban was justified by the same racial ideas and attitudes that also justified slavery. 

Nowhere in the essay does it say that there was any doctrinal reason for the ban nor does it say that to quote the essay is engaging in speculation.

[Vort]

42 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I have referenced the essay in saying that there is no accepted doctrinal reason for the ban and that it came about as a result of the racial and cultural attitudes of the day. 

The bolded part above is a lie, or at least a blatant misrepresentation. It's time you recognize that your statement above is false; the essay says no such thing.

[Vort]

29 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue forthe legalization of black “servitude” in theTerritory of Utah. 

 

There it is again. The ban was justified by the same racial ideas and attitudes that also justified slavery. 

Yes, of course. Do you honestly fail to understand the simple truth being stated above?

Let me help you by restating it:

"Once the restriction was in place, people justified that restriction by using the commonly held ideas about the innate racial inferiority of those of African descent."

Well, duh. Of course they did. How could it be any different? No specific reason had been given for the Priesthood ban. To this day, we have not been given the reason (except from people like you, who like to make up the reasons as they go along). In the absence of any reason being given, people naturally turned to what they considered "common sense" to explain why the ban was in place. The Church has made it clear that these explanations were not doctrinal*, though many of the members and leaders of the time doubtless thought they were. But the Church has never answered the question about why the ban was instituted. So we do not know, and in this case, "we" includes "BJ64". You would do well to keep your own ignorant ideas on this topic to yourself.

*Note: "Not doctrinal" does not mean "false". It means, "These ideas are not part of the revealed word of God to us." However true or false those explanations may ultimately prove to be, they are not the doctrine of the Church and should not be considered doctrinal. This goes double for your speculations.

[Vort]

55 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I think you need to read it again. 

This is real simple, BJ. Just quote the exact words that say something substantially similar to, "The Priesthood ban was put in place because the members were racists." Simply point out that sentence or paragraph. Nothing you have quoted so far even comes close to that.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I'm not the one deaf or blind. I believe the flood was global and know how it happened and see mountains of evidence for it. Therefore I see and hear.

Oh I see. Makes perfect sense.

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

This never happened. If you maintain it did, please cite the relevant source.

What you think or suspect in this matter is irrelevant. What is relevant is the counsel we have received to avoid speculating on this topic regarding things we don't know about. That is exactly what you are doing. Stop it.

Race and the priesthood gospel essay from LDS.org

Quote

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

Quote

In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.⁹

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.¹⁰ According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.¹¹ Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.¹² Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

Quote

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.²⁴

Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly. While Church records for individual members do not indicate an individual’s race or ethnicity, the number of Church members of African descent is now in the hundreds of thousands.

From the essay itself.

In regards to the essays, they are written in the context of a historian writing about the church.  They are not actually written as doctrine or from a doctrinal viewpoint.  They are written to expand those interested in church history and facets of the church's topics from a more academic viewpoint.  They can be integrated into various church classes and lessons and often members are encouraged to do so.  As I stated previously though, the historical essays are written from the viewpoint of men and scholarship using the best methods that the church history department has determined they should use.  It is not supposed to supplant doctrine, but to supplement the doctrines taught in the church.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Race and the priesthood gospel essay from LDS.org

From the essay itself.

In regards to the essays, they are written in the context of a historian writing about the church.  They are not actually written as doctrine or from a doctrinal viewpoint.  They are written to expand those interested in church history and facets of the church's topics from a more academic viewpoint.  They can be integrated into various church classes and lessons and often members are encouraged to do so.  As I stated previously though, the historical essays are written from the viewpoint of men and scholarship using the best methods that the church history department has determined they should use.  It is not supposed to supplant doctrine, but to supplement the doctrines taught in the church.

Why do people keep quoting this? It manifestly does not say what they claim it says. Nowhere does it say or imply that Brigham Young got it wrong or that the ban was put in place by Church leaders because of racism.

At some point we need to learn how to read what's right there in front of us.

[BJ64]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

This is real simple, BJ. Just quote the exact words that say something substantially similar to, "The Priesthood ban was put in place because the members were racists." Simply point out that sentence or paragraph. Nothing you have quoted so far even comes close to that.

I believe my understanding of If I am misunderstanding it’s intended meaning then so are many others.the essay Race and the Priesthood reflect what the church intends people to understand from the essay. If I am misunderstanding it’s intended meaning then so are many others misunderstanding it. 

I found this Washington Post article just this morning that was written when the essay was released. The writer of the article got the same understanding from the essay as I got from it. I am not alone in my understanding of the essay. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/mormon-church-justifications-for-black-priesthood-ban-rooted-in-racism/2013/12/10/1a142f10-61e2-11e3-a7b4-4a75ebc432ab_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5e37487f830b

 

[JohnsonJones]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why do people keep quoting this? It manifestly does not say what they claim it says. Nowhere does it say or imply that Brigham Young got it wrong or that the ban was put in place by Church leaders because of racism.

At some point we need to learn how to read what's right there in front of us.

 Directly from the essay itself in reference directly to what Brigham Young's actions and stated...

Quote

None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church

.

PS: You should probably read what you quoted from me.  Without context, what you said is strangely out of place in regards to what I wrote....

Edited May 7, 2018 by JohnsonJones