Noah's Flood

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour 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.

Actually, the essay DOES address it, and Brigham Young did say multiple items regarding the Ban.  The essay itself could be read in two ways.  One, where you think the sentence so quoted by me and others in this thread refers ONLY to the sentence preceding it, OR that it refers to the entirety of the paragraph.  In the latter, it actually IS refuting the actual Ban of Brigham.  There are various sources including the Journal of Discourses (Conference talks recorded by writing...not necessarily always word for word though) and other historical items where Brigham relates the priesthood ban related to racial issues...BUT

The REASON Brigham had for saying it was due to a curse on race is not defined by him (so we plausibly can say we do not know why he did it or the exact reasoning beyond revelation)...BUT from how he talked about the issue it is possible he got it from the same source later prophets did...which is this little gem which IS actually doctrine for the LDS church (today, currently)...

Found in Abraham 1 of the Pearl of Great Price

Quote

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Which has been interpreted by MANY (including prophets and apostles) regarding discrimination regarding the priesthood.

The essay makes it clear that this is no longer accepted as the reason or a good reason.  It is also a point that many who are against the church tend to bring up against the church in regards to racism and the priesthood. 

Ironically, for those who do not believe that Genesis (or in this instance Abraham) is literal, than the above probably should not offer any problems...it only creates some difficulties for those who do, and then only for the few of those who feel that modern western values should be the standard by which the rest of the world throughout all of history should be judged.

Edited May 7, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

The difficulty I have with much of this is how fervent people are in regards to various issues (race and the priesthood, or the literal flood of the earth).  WE have the historical record and the essays from the church reflect that to the best knowledge we have.  I know (especially viewing this thread) that there are those out there who are in denial about certain aspects of the historical church that is written by historians (which is what the essays reflect...NOT CHURCH DOCTRINE)...but why does it bother people this much?

If one has a testimony from the Lord about the church, then this is not something that should worry them.  Instead, the focus should be on the here and now.  The flood that Noah survived is a lesson we can use today in obedience to the Lord and listening to the Lord...but it's not something that we are going to need to build an ark to survive.  For us, the value is in the story and it's application to our lives, regardless of whether you believe it is literal (like I do) or not.

The same with race and the Priesthood.  It is in the past.  Today...all men can hold the Priesthood and all men can go to the temple.  WE are not living in those times anymore, and today is where we should be centered.  If we focus too much on the past and try to figure out if something was or was not a mistake it invariably may hurt what is important today, which is having faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his atonement, Repenting of our sins, and Enduring to the end.  All things should be focused on the Lord and his atonement in our steps to our salvation and exaltation.

History is a fascinating thing (and I should know, I love history), but when we focus on what is important, then that is more pertaining to the here and now, and learning from the past and it's applications to us.  In this way, the story of Noah and the flood has great importance to any and all in this day and age where men constantly mock the things of the Lord and ignore his gospel.  From it we can see the importance of doing what the Lord instructs, even if the entire world mocks us.  The Lessons from Noah hold importance no matter whether you think it actually happened, or is a parable, because regardless of which it is, the lesson is still the same for us in our current time and age.

[Connie]

50 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. 

So you are saying that his reasons are among the theories that are being disavowed. Am I understanding you correctly?

[JohnsonJones]

2 minutes ago, Connie said:

So you are saying that his reasons are among the theories that are being disavowed. Am I understanding you correctly?

I think that is what he is stating.

If you read the essay in a certain way, that is ALSO what the essay is stating.

One should remember though, the essays are written from a scholarly perspective and with a historian's bias.  It is NOT doctrine.  It is NOT written by inspiration of General Authorities.  It is written to the best degree that scholars are allowed to in regards to their specific topics and then approved on by higher ups.  They are written to supplement teachings of doctrine, not to supplant them.

[estradling75]

17 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Actually, the essay DOES address it, and Brigham Young did say multiple items regarding the Ban.  The essay itself could be read in two ways.  One, where you think the sentence so quoted by me and others in this thread refers ONLY to the sentence preceding it, OR that it refers to the entirety of the paragraph.  In the latter, it actually IS refuting the actual Ban of Brigham.  There are various sources including the Journal of Discourses (Conference talks recorded by writing...not necessarily always word for word though) and other historical items where Brigham relates the priesthood ban related to racial issues...BUT.

Why are you falsely stating my position on the matter?

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Why are you falsely stating my position on the matter?

I am toying with the idea that some people are literally incapable of a high level of reading comprehension. The old dictum to write to a fifth-grade reading level may be less an indictment of American education and more a capitulation to the reality of intellectual capacity.

[JohnsonJones]

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Why are you falsely stating my position on the matter?

Unintentionally?

I must misunderstand what your position is in that particular post I responded to.   What you wrote seemed to indicate my post addressed it, but perhaps it did not and I misunderstood what you wrote.

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Unintentionally?

I must misunderstand what your position is in that particular post I responded to.   What you wrote seemed to indicate my post addressed it, but perhaps it did not and I misunderstood what you wrote.

 

Ok..  Lets start with the very basics.  Do you believe that the Prophets of God are subject to the Law of Witness when it comes to revealing his word?

[JohnsonJones]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Ok..  Lets start with the very basics.  Do you believe that the Prophets of God are subject to the Law of Witness when it comes to revealing his word?

Me...no.  I do not. 

However, for it to be made into doctrine in our current LDS church...than YES, it needs to be a unanimous decision. 

My thoughts are that if a prophet says that something is revealed to them and this is what the Lord instructs, that then is what the Lord is stating.

However, as per the church policy, this is NOT how doctrine is created nor adhered to today in our church.  It needs to also be unanimously accepted by the First Presidency and then the twelve in order to be seen as something binding.

Adding: If you are referring to the scripture where it states in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established...this still holds true for prophets.  For example, You had the prophet Abinadi.  Now, none in the court of Noah accepted his words at the time, and it was not unanimous.  However, Alma took those words and later taught them, and today they are accepted by all our prophets.  Hence, even if at the time of Abinadi they were not accepted, it was STILL the words and revelation to a prophet and his words were true.  It was only later that these words were reinforced, retaught, and thus we see that it is in the mouth of two or three witnesses.

Edited May 7, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Connie]

19 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think that is what he is stating.

If you read the essay in a certain way, that is ALSO what the essay is stating.

One should remember though, the essays are written from a scholarly perspective and with a historian's bias.  It is NOT doctrine.  It is NOT written by inspiration of General Authorities.  It is written to the best degree that scholars are allowed to in regards to their specific topics and then approved on by higher ups.  They are written to supplement teachings of doctrine, not to supplant them.

I see. When I first read this essay and now as I've read it again, I don't think the essay makes it clear that these theories were Brigham Young's reasoning. I think it's quite the opposite. Especially when I read this paragraph: 

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.

"Following the death of Brigham Young" and "Over time" would seem to indicate that the theories came later and not from Brigham Young, himself. The essay then goes through the theories but says nothing about them being Young's reasoning. I've looked through the resource list and can't see anything that would indicate such. Can you point to some sources that would indicate these theories were the reasons Brigham Young, himself, gave? I am not seeing anything in the essay to indicate that is the case.

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, for it to be made into doctrine in our current LDS church...than YES, it needs to be a unanimous decision. 

My thoughts are that if a prophet says that something is revealed to them and this is what the Lord instructs, that then is what the Lord is stating.

However, as per the church policy, this is NOT how doctrine is created nor adhered to today in our church.  It needs to also be unanimously accepted by the First Presidency and then the twelve in order to be seen as something binding.

You reached the point I was going to head for anyways witness of one form or another is how the Lord works for his church...  How about the requirement for such things to be documented?  (See also D&C 128 and the scriptures themselves)

[JohnsonJones]

19 minutes ago, Connie said:

I see. When I first read this essay and now as I've read it again, I don't think the essay makes it clear that these theories were Brigham Young's reasoning. I think it's quite the opposite. Especially when I read this paragraph: 

"Following the death of Brigham Young" and "Over time" would seem to indicate that the theories came later and not from Brigham Young, himself. The essay then goes through the theories but says nothing about them being Young's reasoning. I've looked through the resource list and can't see anything that would indicate such. Can you point to some sources that would indicate these theories were the reasons Brigham Young, himself, gave? I am not seeing anything in the essay to indicate that is the case.

Journal of Discourses would probably be the best source, but there are many talks given and I'm not in the mood to really go into a search.  Various other sources have Brigham at times referring to the Ban and his explanation of WHY.  Most of these fall in line with what is current LDS doctrine found in the Pearl of Great Price, Abraham, Chapter 1.  In that essence, it was that Cain and his descendants were not allowed to carry the priesthood, that this lineage was carried on through Ham, and thus all the descendants of Ham could not hold the priesthood, or, as the PoGP states, they could not have the rights to the Priesthood.

The most famous though had nothing to do with Conference and instead refers to a more famous political speech of his (where he rails against interracial marriage).

Thus, most of those who expounded in this line of thought through the years related normally had references to two sources.  The first and foremost (as with Mckonkie when he chose to show sources) in many instances are directly related to quotes by Brigham Young himself, thus if refuting these theories that they espoused which came directly from Brigham Young, the essay thus is ALSO refuting the Ban directly in regards to the reasonings of Brigham Young.

Brigham DID state that some day this ban would be lifted. 

As the Pearl of Great Price was not scripture for the full history of the church, it cannot be used as the doctrinal reason for this revelation to the Prophet Brigham.  There are other sources that link the ban directly to the Pearl of Great Price in the paragraphs that I quoted above.  If one is not referring to Brigham Young, than the most common reference point in the 20th century was in referral to those passages in regards to the ban.

That said, today, as far as historians can tell, and scholars as well, the reasons for the ban are refuted by the LDS church.  Much of the hypothesis (which the church essay goes into detail) are related to feeling it was based more upon the racism prevalent in that day rather than any doctrinal basis specifically, but in truth, due to the situation, we cannot say exactly in light of the church's PR departments refutal of reasons.

Today, many use Brigham's multiple statements on his reasons for the racial ban as Brigham speaking more as a PERSON and expressing his opinion than Brigham speaking as a prophet.

Obviously, Anti-Mormons have a problem with that take.  On a whole, when we see Brigham (and later others) who express what most would see as racist diatribes in their talks, speeches, and otherwise today, we view it as them expressing their opinions of the day, rather than them speaking as a prophet.

Edited May 7, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You reached the point I was going to head for anyways witness of one form or another is how the Lord works for his church...  How about the requirement for such things to be documented?  (See also D&C 128 and the scriptures themselves)

You are referring to the first few verses?  In that this is a requirement that there is a recorder for ordinances.  This is not necessary for revelation.  Prophets can receive revelation and tell us what we are to do or how things are to occur without it being written down.  We know that there are prophets that have said much in regards to revelations from the Book of Mormon where we hear of prophets such as Zenock. 

However, it is hard to act upon such revelations or have it handed down as commandments or ordinances IF we do not know about them or do not have access to them.  For this purpose Nephi and his brothers went back to Jerusalem to get the Brass plates.  Thus, in order for us to know and follow the commandments, they need to be written down.

The most famous occasion of this in our time would be the operation of temple ordinances.  They were, for a time, not recorded anywhere and so how they were to be performed was not something one could know.  They were later written down (if my memory serves right) by Wilford Woodruff who had a very good memory (some would say it was a picture perfect memory) and had them written word for word correctly.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

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!

 

Well, then according to @Rob Osborn, I fail some sort of test. 

Nothing personal, but the fact that I failed a test you made up makes me feel much more secure about my faith life. 

[estradling75]

Just now, JohnsonJones said:

You are referring to the first few verses?  In that this is a requirement that there is a recorder for ordinances.  This is not necessary for revelation.  Prophets can receive revelation and tell us what we are to do or how things are to occur without it being written down.  We know that there are prophets that have said much in regards to revelations from the Book of Mormon where we hear of prophets such as Zenock. 

However, it is hard to act upon such revelations or have it handed down as commandments or ordinances IF we do not know about them or do not have access to them.  For this purpose Nephi and his brothers went back to Jerusalem to get the Brass plates.  Thus, in order for us to know and follow the commandments, they need to be written down.

The most famous occasion of this in our time would be the operation of temple ordinances.  They were, for a time, not recorded anywhere and so how they were to be performed was not something one could know.  They were later written down (if my memory serves right) by Wilford Woodruff who had a very good memory (some would say it was a picture perfect memory) and had them written word for word correctly.

Indeed  a verbal "Thus Saith the Lord" can work, but only so long as the people remember them...  But we forget quite easily... Thus the command for Nephi to go back and get the Records... Not because Nephi and Lehi were not Prophets of God... But for future generations a record was required.

Do you believe the Church when it tells us it can find no Records of initial command/revelation/prompting/whatever it was?  

[JohnsonJones]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed  a verbal "Thus Saith the Lord" can work, but only so long as the people remember them...  But we forget quite easily... Thus the command for Nephi to go back and get the Records... Not because Nephi and Lehi were not Prophets of God... But for future generations a record was required.

Do you believe the Church when it tells us it can find no Records of initial command/revelation/prompting/whatever it was?  

I don't see the church stating this.

Here's a little lovely that Brigham Young delivered politically though...

Quote

The principle of slavery I understand, at least I have self-confidence enough and confidence enough in God to believe I do. I believe still further that a great many others understand it as I do. A great portion of this community have been instructed and have applied their minds to it, and as far as they have, they agree precisely in the principles of slavery. My remarks in the first place will be upon the cause of the introduction of slavery. Long ago mama Eve, our good old mother Eve, partook of the forbidden fruit and this made a slave of her. Adam hated very much to have her taken out of the garden of Eden, and now our old daddy says, I believe I will eat of the fruit and become a slave, too. This was the first introduction of slavery upon this earth; and there has not been a son or daughter of Adam from that day to this but what were slaves in the true sense of the word. That slavery will continue until there is a people raised up upon the face of the earth who will contend for righteous principles, who will not only believe in, but operate with every power and faculty given to them to help to establish the Kingdom of God, to overcome the devil, and drive him from the earth; then will this curse be removed. This was the starting point of slavery.

Again, after Adam and Eve had partook of the curse, we find they had two sons, Cain and Abel, but which was the oldest I cannot positively say; but this I know: Cain was given more to evil practices than Abel, but whether he was the oldest or not matters not to me. Adam was commanded to sacrifice and offer up his offerings to God that placed him into the garden of Eden. Through the faith and obedience of Abel to his Heavenly Father, Cain become jealous of him, and he laid a plan to obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to Father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he took it into his heart to put Abel out of his mortal existence. After the deed was done, the Lord inquired for Abel and made Cain own what he had done with him. Now, says the grandfather, I will not destroy the seed of Michael and his wife, and Cain, I will not kill you nor suffer anyone else to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that mark? You will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know: when the mark was put upon Cain, Abel's children were in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the Priesthood, nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the Priesthood, until the redemption of the earth.

If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ that spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are; I know that they cannot bear rule in the Priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed, and hold the keys of the Priesthood until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth and from Michael's seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in remembrance and the time come when the curse should be wiped off. Now, then, in the Kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of Priesthood. Why? Because they are the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it? Men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off; but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have until the time comes that says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more.

In the Kingdom of God on the earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in government. The subjects, the rightful servants of the residue of the children of Adam, and the residue of the children through the benign influence of the spirit of the Lord have the privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lord's will they should receive the spirit of God by baptism, and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power. You talk of the dark skin. I never saw a white man on earth. I have seen persons whose hair came pretty nigh being white, but to talk about white skins, it is something entirely unknown, though some skins are fairer than others. Look at the black eye and the jet black hair we often see upon men and women who are called white; there is no such things as white folks. We are the children of Adam, who receive the blessings, and that is enough for us if we are not quite white. But let me tell you further, let my seed mingle with the seed of Cain, and that brings the curse upon me and upon my generations; we will reap the same rewards with Cain.

In the Priesthood I will tell you what it will do. Were the children of God to mingle their seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the priesthood upon themselves but they entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man in an unguarded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man, woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoning for the sin. Would this be to curse them? No, it would be a blessing to them; it would do them good that they might be saved with their brethren. A man would shudder should they hear us talk about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, although the true principles of it are not understood..... ...I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man. In the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abusing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants.... ...suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the Black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and Kingdom, and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to destruction; we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed.

Printed in Vol. 3 of the Teachings of Brigham Young Colliers Press.   Speech given to the Legislature in 1952 reported by George D. Watt (as per the book).

Perhaps the most famous Eulogy used by people in regards to Brigham Young's thoughts on the matter.

Edited May 7, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[estradling75]

12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I don't see the church stating this.

So when the Church state "We do not know" on the whys of the Priesthood ban.  Are they lying? 

[omegaseamaster75]

So out of one side of your mouths you say that whatever the prophet says is doctrinal, but out of the other side of your mouths all the stuff that happened in the past doesn't count and wasn't doctrinal. ?????   Pick a side guys.

For the record I think the Ban on the Priesthood was a matter of policy established by Brigham Young later rescinded via "revelation" because it was a bad policy.  The tough part is explaining away 100 plus years of bad policy. Which I suppose has been done by writing and essay and saying don't question it.

Edited May 7, 2018 by omegaseamaster75

[JohnsonJones]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So when the Church state "We do not know" on the whys of the Priesthood ban.  Are they lying? 

Are you talking about the church, or the church essay here.  There's a BIG difference, if you hadn't figured that out from my previous posts.  From a historians' point of view, we do NOT know. 

The church on the otherhand, officially, as far as I know, is silent on the matter.  What you need to know is that there was a ban and that officially it was done away with by revelation.  All other matters are not really something specifically spoken of, refuted or not.  For the church's official reasons for doing away with the ban you can read it in the Manifesto 2.

On the pages it states there are no clear insights...and that is true.  Historically, there are NO CLEAR insights.  We may have some pretty good indications on Brigham Young's feelings and statements, but there are no specific indications on exactly why.  It wasn't found in the doctrine and though Brigham was adamant on the reasons, it is not specifically reflected that this is why it was approved of by the rest of the General Authorities at the time.  We do have "Foggy" insights though...and Brigham was pretty specific, even if others may not have been.  This includes conference talks he gave.

The manifesto itself does NOT address the matter (though the frontpiece NOT by the prophet makes some statements)...the manifesto itself states

Quote

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

The above is doctrine, the introductions are not (as is the same with all introductions to various chapters and otherwise which are rewritten from time to time).

I'm having to leave soon, so I apologize if I will be unable to answer many more of your questions.  I'm about to go on a trip for a few days but should be back.

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

Are you talking about the church, or the church essay here.  There's a BIG difference, if you hadn't figured that out from my previous posts.  From a historians' point of view, we do NOT know.

I am talking about the essay that the Church produced to help the members further understand what happened.  Did the church authorize and embrace something they knew to be a lie?

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Connie said:

So you are saying that his reasons are among the theories that are being disavowed. Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes, they are exactly the reasons which have been disavowed. Most of the “theories” originated from his teachings. 

While his teachings on the topic are not important for our day, you can search and see exactly what his professed view was. 

I started reading The Discourses of Brigham Young recently but stopped because I found very little that had application for our day. Hence we have a living prophet from whom we may receive guidance. 

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I started reading The Discourses of Brigham Young recently but stopped because I found very little that had application for our day.

Then you didn't read very far. Almost everything Brigham Young taught has immediate application to our lives. For example:

Quote

Never try to destroy a man. It is our mission to save the people, not to destroy them. The least, the most inferior spirit now upon the earth, in our capacity, is worth worlds. [...] Suppose you should labor all your lifetime faithfully, and be the means of saving one soul, how great would be your joy in heaven over that soul that you were the means of saving! If to all eternity you could praise God, through being the means of saving one soul—I may say the least or most inferior intelligence upon the earth, pertaining to the human family—if you could be the means of saving one such person, how great would be your joy in the heavens! Then let us save many, and our joy will be great in proportion to the number of souls we save. Let us destroy none.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, Discourse 22, "Varieties of Mind and Character--Chastisement--Freedom, &c.", 17 February 1861

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

I am talking about the essay that the Church produced to help the members further understand what happened.  Did the church authorize and embrace something they knew to be a lie?

That's a trickier answer than you know.

I've said it repeatedly, but I should say it again.  The Essays are NOT doctrine.  They are not based on inspiration per se.  They are scholarly.  They are written from a scholarly viewpoint.  When faced between doctrine, the scriptures, current General Conference, what the prophet says, what General Authorities state, ALWAYS choose them before what the essay says.

The essays are written in the ways of the world to enlighten and help broaden the saints understanding on certain gospel subjects.  With the history, it is written in consultation with the best Historians of the church and in conjunction with the Church historian.  It is written from a scholarly viewpoint...which is NOT to be confused with the same writings of that of General Authorities.  The words of a General Authority or what you read or hear at conference has precedence over them.

They are written to try to present the history of the church in a factual and educational way.  They are written to supplement gospel teaching and understanding, however they are not to supplant gospel teaching and understanding.

The church has posted them on their website as such, however, they are written FOR the world in a worldly manner so that the world can utilize them.  They are NOT written in the manner that spiritual talks and other items are written.  They are of use and can increase one's understanding, but one should not base or not base their testimony upon what they read in the LDS church essays.  They should refer to the Scriptures and Conference for testimony and faith.

Anyways, I do have to get going.  Sorry if you do not hear from me for a while as this is probably my last post on the forum for at least a few days (my normal practice is to NOT post on forums when I am off elsewhere, especially in certain areas of the world). 

As such, I'd like to end this one a more positive note.  The current policies and commandments allow all men to hold the priesthood and to participate in the Temple.  All around the world people rejoice in their ability to participate and to enjoy these blessings.  Our testimonies should be based upon the gospel that the spirit has testified to us is true, not the various facets of trivia or historical conundrums that may have purposes and reasons that have no application or reasons for us today.  Instead, we should focus on the truth and light of the gospel and the atonement of our Lord which enables us to attain salvation and exaltation.  History and the study of it is fun, but not all that is considered the facts in history are true, and not all truth is verified by scientific fact.  What we should seek is the truth that will enable us to enter into the Celestial Kingdom and live with our Father above after this life.  At least, that's my goal...hopefully I will make it with all of you as well!

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

So when the Church state "We do not know" on the whys of the Priesthood ban.  Are they lying? 

I don’t think they are lying. I think they are trying to put the best possible face on a tricky piece of church history. 

[estradling75]

 

29 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That's a trickier answer than you know.

I've said it repeatedly, but I should say it again.  The Essays are NOT doctrine.

I never claimed they were doctrine... Please quit putting in my mouth or otherwise implying that you know my position is when you clearly do not.

The church had there historians create the Race in the Priesthood article to help member between understand how everything happened.  That article states that we do not know the details of how the Ban came to be.  Either we accept that has a accurate reflection of the facts as we currently have them.  Or the historians and the church are knowingly and willfully promulgating a lie.

Why is this important?  Because as @BJ64 said its a bit tricky.

Brigham Young was called the lead the church by Revelation.  But revelation can come in many different forms.  While Brigham was pondering and praying about the issue that prompted the Ban the details of what he was praying about and what the exact answer from the Lord becomes important to understand how to move forward.  Was it a simple impression that to solve problem X by have a ban on who can hold the Priesthood?  Or was it a big old vision where he saw the preexistence and how God had things set up?    Per the church the answer is we do not know.  Because we have no record of what Brigham was taking to the Lord nor do we know how detailed or explicit the answer was.

This is kind of important, because if it was an answer to problem X was to do the ban then it become logical that if problem X stops being a problem then the Ban can go away.

Without that knowledge the other church leaders could only do what they did.  Pray and ask.  Other Prophets asked but it was not until Kimball that the Lord made it clear it was time.

Did Brigham lie?  Clearly not.  Did Brigham get all the details at once or did God just say "Do this."  Leaving Brigham to ponder and try to figure things out?  We do not know.  Either case can explain his later writing.

Is the Church lying about not knowing?  Why in all that is Holy would they (or have their Historians do it for them)?  If we had a document where Brigham writes that while he was pondering X the Lord told him Y the church would treat it like every other documented revelation that we have. 

If you think this is not true then produce the document.  Produce the written and dated journal entry where the revelation on the ban is given