Noah's Flood

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I believe my understanding of If I am misunderstanding it’s intended meaning then so are many others.

Then please select two or three examples from that vast throng and reference them here.

18 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

If I am misunderstanding it’s intended meaning then so are many others misunderstanding it. 

This much is clear. But it is not the Church's fault if they put out a clear, carefully worded document and a bunch of people with less-than-stellar reading comprehension skills immediately say that it means something it obviously doesn't mean.

18 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

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. 

This is typical of journalism today -- broadcast falsehood as truth. Please don't depend on news articles from the Washington Post to inform you of the meaning of Church releases. Instead, read them yourself, carefully, and find out what they really say.

That you are not alone in your misunderstanding proves only that a great many people are careless readers, including beat writers for the Washington Post, who along with the rest of the US east coast self-appointed intelligensia view Mormonism as a bizarre, cultic western religious phenomenon clung to primarily by some of those in flyover country.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Vort

[BJ64]

If you want to know if the doctrinal reason for the ban on the priesthood it only takes a few seconds of searching to find countless quotes from prophets and apostles on the doctrinal reasons for the ban. The reasons for the band were preach from the pulpit for 130 years. However none of that matters anymore because in the words of Bruce R. McConkie “There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. 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.”

[Vort]

Just now, BJ64 said:

If you want to know if the doctrinal reason for the ban on the priesthood it only takes a few seconds of searching to find countless quotes from prophets and apostles on the doctrinal reasons for the ban. The reasons for the band were preach from the pulpit for 130 years. However none of that matters anymore because in the words of Bruce R. McConkie “There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. 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.”

True. Also irrelevant. The point is that you are claiming that the Church now teaches that the Priesthood ban was caused by racism, specifically by Brigham Young's racism. Aside from being shockingly disloyal, this statement is a baldfaced lie. The Church teaches no such thing.

I am more than willing to be proven wrong. All you have to do is cite the Church teaching where it says "The Priesthood ban was instituted because of racism", or words to that effect. So far, you have not. Your best citation to this point is a Washington Post article, basically a citation of an anti-Mormon source.

[estradling75]

Sigh  it is not that hard...

The ban was put in place by Brigham Young.  This is clear.

The doctrinal foundation of the Ban has never been given.  This is also clear.

Many church leaders have speculated and given their opinions on what they think are doctrinal foundations for the Ban.  Some are even quite popular in their day... but they all fail to meet the criteria for official Word of God revelation.  Thus they are not doctrinal because they did not come in by the gate.

Calling such opinions wrong (rather then not doctrinal) requires us to have an official Word of God revelation to compare it to.  We do not.  We do not know... means exactly that... we do not know.  Some people might have guess right, or everyone might have guess wrong.. but we simply do not know

 

[BJ64]

33 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Sigh  it is not that hard...

The ban was put in place by Brigham Young.  This is clear.

The doctrinal foundation of the Ban has never been given.  This is also clear.

 

When I read Brigham Young’s discourses on the subject of the blacks and the priesthood I get a distinct impression that the doctrinal basis for a ban was clear in his mind. 

I won’t ask anyone to accept my opinions of his discourses but anyone can read what he said and get their own impressions. 

Again whether the ban was doctrinal or not and I think the essay leads one to believe it was not, makes no difference because we are told to forget anything Brigham Young said on the issue.

We are to accept what our modern prophets have told us. I would include the essay race and the priesthood which surely must have been given their approval.

[estradling75]

24 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

When I read Brigham Young’s discourses on the subject of the blacks and the priesthood I get a distinct impression that the doctrinal basis for a ban was clear in his mind. 

I won’t ask anyone to accept my opinions of his discourses but anyone can read what he said and get their own impressions. 

Again whether the ban was doctrinal or not and I think the essay leads one to believe it was not, makes no difference because we are told to forget anything Brigham Young said on the issue.

We are to accept what our modern prophets have told us. I would include the essay race and the priesthood which surely must have been given their approval.

The scriptures are quite clear on how we (the Church) are to recognized "Official Doctrine" or teaching.  It must come from an Official Source... (Which Brigham Young Was but he never gave it)  It must be Witnessed (Can't witness what we didn't get) and the First Presidency/12 must be in unity.  The Practice of the Ban meet those, the various attempts at giving a reason all fall short.

We see this pattern very clearly in the last conference, twice even.  President Nelson announced the changes to the Priesthood Quorum and the Home Teaching program.  (He is official).  He then called two witness to testify and expand on his words, then others got up and talked about how they were united in making this change.

I would hope that Brigham Young knew exactly what he was doing and why.  But those reasons never got shared with us through the Lord's appointed way only the actions did.  So while the action are authoritative the claims to know why such actions were taken are guess work.

 

[Connie]

40 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Again whether the ban was doctrinal or not and I think the essay leads one to believe it was not, makes no difference because we are told to forget anything Brigham Young said on the issue.

Wait. I thought we were supposed to forget the various theories about why it was put in place. Now I'm confused. Aren't the theories what are being "disavowed," not the ban itself because we don't know the reason for it?

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Connie said:

Wait. I thought we were supposed to forget the various theories about why it was put in place. Now I'm confused. Aren't the theories what are being "disavowed," not the ban itself because we don't know the reason for it?

The Ban itself is/was legitimately done by one with the power and authority to do so.

Why the Ban was issued is unknown and we have been told to stop guessing as to why.  (Which would include guessing which prior reasons are wrong)  Because the reason has not been made known to us.

[Vort]

53 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Again whether the ban was doctrinal or not and I think the essay leads one to believe it was not, makes no difference because we are told to forget anything Brigham Young said on the issue.

By this same token, we are not to speculate that the Priesthood ban was due to racism or some such thing. I know that's a very popular thing to say in some circles, with some (including present company) going so far as to say that the Church now teaches that the ban was a mistake -- which is blatantly false.

The instruction to stop speculating applies just as much to you and your pet theories as it does to the guy who thinks that the Priesthood ban is explained by premortal failure to be sufficiently valiant. You both are wrong to put your speculations forward.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Connie said:

Wait. I thought we were supposed to forget the various theories about why it was put in place. Now I'm confused. Aren't the theories what are being "disavowed," not the ban itself because we don't know the reason for it?

Seems obvious enough, doesn't it, Connie? Yet BJ64 and hosts like him insist that the Church's clearly worded essays say something that they simply don't say. You can lead a horse to an essay, but you can't make him read it with clear comprehension undefiled by his pre-existent biases.

[BJ64]

10 minutes ago, Connie said:

Wait. I thought we were supposed to forget the various theories about why it was put in place. Now I'm confused. Aren't the theories what are being "disavowed," not the ban itself because we don't know the reason for it?

Bruce R. McConkie said this. 

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 limitedunderstanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

[Vort]

Just now, BJ64 said:

Bruce R. McConkie said this. 

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 limitedunderstanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

Note what Elder McConkie did not say: "The Priesthood ban instituted by President Young was racist and wicked, and was not of God."

[Guest]

18 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Not to change the topic but the Bible clearly states that the division of the land in the days of Peleg was the land being divided up among groups of people, not divided by water. 

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.

32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

While I share that interpretation, I would not say it is "clearly stated".  It could just as easily be interpreted (and possibly correctly) that it was divided by water.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

What evidence is against it? The whole science of geology. 

And yes, lack of evidence requires one to have faith in that thing. In most cases there is not evidence saying something didn't happen. In the case of the flood, there is much evidence saying it didn't happen. 

I disagree that the whole science of geology is against it.  We don't know that the "baptism" had to be any more than a single instant which would have left no geological evidence over however many thousands of years.  A single instant may very well have been that it rained over the whole earth at the same time for just that instant.

As stated before, I have no problem with anyone's belief on this subject.  Either could be true and I don't care.  But you're inferring conditions that don't necessarily have to have been.

[BJ64]

12 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The Ban itself is/was legitimately done by one with the power and authority to do so.

Why the Ban was issued is unknown and we have been told to stop guessing as to why.  (Which would include guessing which prior reasons are wrong)  Because the reason has not been made known to us.

Brigham Young made it clear why the ban was imposed and his teachings on the subject were taught as though it was doctrine, whether or not it was, for 130 years. 

It’s his reasons that have been disavowed by the Church. 

[Guest MormonGator]

 I've never seen a discussion about the great flood ever end in a good way. It always leads to arguments and accusations about what a "true Christian" can and can't believe about it. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

When I read Brigham Young’s discourses on the subject of the blacks and the priesthood I get a distinct impression that the doctrinal basis for a ban was clear in his mind. 

. . . . we are told to forget anything Brigham Young said on the issue.

Including Young’s 1846 statement to William McCary about how there was nothing wrong with black men holding the priesthood?

[BJ64]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

By this same token, we are not to speculate that the Priesthood ban was due to racism or some such thing. I know that's a very popular thing to say in some circles, with some (including present company) going so far as to say that the Church now teaches that the ban was a mistake -- which is blatantly false.

The instruction to stop speculating applies just as much to you and your pet theories as it does to the guy who thinks that the Priesthood ban is explained by premortal failure to be sufficiently valiant. You both are wrong to put your speculations forward.

 

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

Note what Elder McConkie did not say: "The Priesthood ban instituted by President Young was racist and wicked, and was not of God."

Nor did I. In fact I believe it was of God for the very reasons which Brigham Young expounded upon. 

[zil]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I've never seen a discussion about the great flood ever end in a good way. It always leads to arguments and accusations about what a "true Christian" can and can't believe about it. 

I got myself a giant horse the other day - but he's too tall for the stables at my house (not that there's a way to board him there, but I had hoped). 

[BJ64]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I've never seen a discussion about the great flood ever end in a good way. It always leads to arguments and accusations about what a "true Christian" can and can't believe about it. 

Oh! Was this conversation about a flood?😀

[Guest]

13 hours ago, BJ64 said:

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. 

Tell me how "none of these explanations is accepted today..." somehow turns into "No doctrinal reason for the ban."

Edited May 7, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I've never seen a discussion about the great flood ever end in a good way. It always leads to arguments and accusations about what a "true Christian" can and can't believe about it. 

Well, then you must not be a TRUE Christian if you believe  discussing the flood is somehow eeevil...

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Brigham Young made it clear why the ban was imposed and his teachings on the subject were taught as though it was doctrine, whether or not it was, for 130 years. 

It’s his reasons that have been disavowed by the Church. 

And that should tell you something shouldn't it.   The Law of Moses was of God.  People failed to live it and were told under very clear and plain language that their salvation depended on it.

Then the Lord "disavowed" the Law of Moses, and people struggled to let it go.  They pointed to the words of the Prophets of Old about how salvation depended on it..  They continued to cling to the old way and old mindsets and unless they repented of such would fall away.

It does not matter why the Ban was given... clinging to the idea that you "know" is only going to hurt you.

 

[Rob Osborn]

37 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I've never seen a discussion about the great flood ever end in a good way. It always leads to arguments and accusations about what a "true Christian" can and can't believe about it. 

It is a sorts of a litmus test in a way regarding ones true faith though- where we stand in relationship to God- if we have both feet in, sort of in, one foot in one foot out, sort of out, or all the way out. It is what it is. I know that those who are true and faithful saints dont question the validity of the flood, rather, they accept it in faith and hold fast to the iron rod. Whether one likes it or not, that is the truth!

Thus, if we find ourselves questioning the validity of the flood we should closely examine our faith and where it really is- is it in God or is it in the arm and brain of mans weak understandings?

Edited May 7, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

I know that those who are true and faithful saints dont question the validity of the flood, rather, they accept it in faith and hold fast to the iron rod.

No true Scotsman questions the flood!