40 Years: Commemorating the 1978 Priesthood and Temple Revelation

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Lots of things are human nature. Raping your pretty neighbor is human nature. Hacking to pieces the guy that bothers you is human nature. The fact that it's in our nature doesn't mean we do those things.

Right, and there is a world of difference between raping your neighbor, murdering someone, and "ignoring" historical truths that make you uncomfortable or don't fit into your preconceived world view. 

[Anddenex]

46 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

Was Brigham Young right or wrong when he said (many times and in many words) that no blacks will ever received the priesthood until every single while person had the chance to receive it?  

Was Brigham Young right or wrong when he said that the penalty for interracial marriage will be death on the spot and this will always be so?  

Here is the exact quote (March 8, 1863):

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. 

These are two simple questions.   Please answer them.  It should only take a few words at most. 

And don't say "we don't know" because we most certainty do know the answers to the above questions.    

I assume that you have to take these statement in light of the following statements he made also:

Quote

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings.

The above is quoted from the Church's essay. So would you say Brigham Young was then right? Or, continue with only one snippet (maybe said many times still the same thing) and say we can't have it both ways?

[Vort]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Right, and there is a world of difference between raping your neighbor, murdering someone, and "ignoring" historical truths that make you uncomfortable or don't fit into your preconceived world view. 

And there is also a world of similarity -- namely, those things are human nature. Merely stating that they're human nature doesn't mean they are to be inferred as probable.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

And there is also a world of similarity 

There is a world of similarity between rape/murder-and only believing certain things when they are convenient to your beliefs? 

[Vort]

Just now, MormonGator said:

There is a world of similarity between rape/murder-and only believing certain things when they are convenient to your beliefs? 

Sure. They are both human nature.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

Sure. They are both human nature.

Of course. 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Of course. 

The point being that saying that X is "only human nature" doesn't mean we should expect or assume that people will do X. Specifically, saying that it's human nature to believe only the parts of the historical record that fits one's biases does not mean that I, Vort, accept only that part of the historical record that suits my biases.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

This is a false question. Brigham Young said no such thing about "interracial marriage". 

I just didn't copy the entire quotes and talks because I thought it was pretty obvious that he is referring to interracial marriage (read the entire discourse if you would like-I'll link it below).  Brigham Young has made many such statements.  Our own Church acknowledges this.  In the past, our own Church leaders have used that quote (and others) from Brigham to teach against interracial marriage.  

Previous Church leaders have used Brigham Young's quotes many times as justification for the previous policies on interracial marriage and even segregation.  For example, this is from Elder Mark E Peterson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see how he quotes Brigham Young for justification), almost a century after Brigham Young said those things:

Elder MARK E. PETERSON

Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church
August 27, 1954.

God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death....

The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders"....

The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth....We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject. 

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....

Now let's talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation....

When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation....

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them....

The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there....

Of course this is just one example.   There are many others and we don't have to discuss every one. 

Anyway, the entire Journal of Discourses is online through the BYU Educational Department:

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/4381

I have read it many, many times and can assure you that Brigham Young has said many, many things that are against current Church doctrine.    We are only discussing one.   There are many.  

The way to move on from previous Church history, especially controversial points of history is simply to admit it (regardless if you do or don't believe that it was the will of God) happened and to move on.  Denying it does nothing to change the past.  

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by Scott

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

The point being that saying that X is "only human nature" doesn't mean we should expect or assume that people will do X. Specifically, saying that it's human nature to believe only the parts of the historical record that fits one's biases does not mean that I, Vort, accept only that part of the historical record that suits my biases.

Great-I'm glad you've achieved that level where you are aware of your biases/beliefs and can accept historical truths that might make you question them. However, the majority of people I've met have a much, much, much harder time accepting/understanding/believing things that make them question their already held beliefs. 

Look at the science that says men and women are biologically different when it comes to brain research. There is a TON of research that says that men and women have some biological differences that go beyond the obvious differences. Do you know of anyone leftist that 1) will even bother to read those studies and 2) would believe after they read it? I don't.

Conservatives are the same. Look at all the evidence for biological evolution. Do you think conservative religious people will 1) read that information and 2) believe it? I don't. 

Yes, when it comes to human nature on this issue I'm much more cynical than you appear to be.  

Edited October 16, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest Scott]

 

Quote

 

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings.

The above is quoted from the Church's essay. So would you say Brigham Young was then right?

 

He was right that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings.   He was wrong that it would only happen after every single white person had the chance to do so.  

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Do you think conservative religious people will 1) read that information and 2) believe it? I don't. 

I'm a conservative religious person...

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I'm a conservative religious person...

Conservative-Yes. 
Religious-Yes. 
Person-Not sure about that one. 

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

 

He was right that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings.   He was wrong that it would only happen after every single white person had the chance to do so.  

Ok, great. What I am trying to understand is the false dichotomy you expressed of having one or the other, "Either Brigham's statements weren't revelation or the more statements weren't revelation.   You can't have it both ways."

The other option is that within multiple statements revelation was received. Bruce R. McConkie said it best when he said to forget (paraphrased) what was said in the past and move forward.

Just because BY was incorrect on some matters, doesn't mean he didn't have "revelation" on other matters, and matters within the same topic. Bruce R. McConkie has some varying statements also, this doesn't negate when the Lord did speak to him (revelation), and when he was speaking his own opinion (and we all know he had many opinions also). I mean, all the prophets had many opinions on multiple topics. This however doesn't negate when they did receive "revelation."

So, I am not following the false dichotomy, which implies BY never had a revelation because he spoke wrong on the same matter. This is logically false. The statement I provided put out by the Church, via Elder Oaks statement:

Quote

 

"Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote:

“In a 1988 interview on the tenth anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, I explained my attitude toward attempts to supply mortal reasons for divine revelation:

“‘If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here [the priesthood and temple restrictions], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. …

“‘… Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord, and that’s where safety lies’” (Life’s Lessons Learned [2011], 68–69). (emphasis mine)

 

As you can see, Elder Oaks is inferring the priesthood ban to be a "revelation" and the reasons put out were exactly that their personal reasons and when we do such "we're on our own."

Which mean I can have it both ways. I can recognize when a prophet is speaking as a man, and I can recognize when they are receiving revelation or speaking as the prophet as given by the Lord.

[Traveler]

@Vort and @MormonGator

As much as it is human nature to rape and murder - it is also human nature to love and have compassion.  As much as I have traveled and talked to many peoples in many lands - It is my general understanding that the nature to rape and murder is actually much less prevalent than love and compassion.  In addition I am convinced that humans are an advanced intelligent species and that without a greater inclination towards love and compassion that the human race would not have survived.  

 

The Traveler

[MarginOfError]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That makes zero sense.  Racism is only racism where there is an intent.  Unintentional racism is an oxymoron.  And a bad one at that.

The Church has ALWAYS had a policy to hold off on building any buildings until there was a justified use for it (i.e. sufficient people would utilize the facility).  It goes along with "no such witness until after the trial of your faith".

Very well then. Call it something different. Courts will use terms like discriminatory intent and discriminatory impact to capture the same notion.

Whether there is intent or not, the impact is the same. Which is the important part of the message. And a lot of "non racist white people" try to use the intent qualifier to absolve themselves of the responsibility of the impact. We shouldn't let them.

As for the building policy, it has the impact. In the map I provided above, more or bigger building could have been built closer to the center of the city, with suburban members assuming the burden to go inward to buildings, instead of urban members being asked to travel outward. That isn't what happens. At present, the Church's attitude toward reaching out to minorities is "we invite minorities to come to us." 

[Anddenex]

9 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

 At present, the Church's attitude toward reaching out to minorities is "we invite minorities to come to us." 

Isn't this the same invitation for all from the Church "to come unto Christ" or us? In my youth, when we lived in Burlington Kansas we had to travel 40 minutes or so to get to Church. I am not sure how this has anything to do with "minorities", but definitely something other than this. This appears to infer too much.

[Guest Scott]

Ok, great. What I am trying to understand is the false dichotomy you expressed of having one or the other, "Either Brigham's statements weren't revelation or the more statements weren't revelation.   You can't have it both ways."

I think you misunderstood.  My statement wasn't about all of Brigham's statements, but only a few.

Sometimes Brigham was right and sometimes he wasn't.

What is considered revelation and official church doctrine has already been discussed.

As far as having it both ways, this was referring to a contradiction between Brigham's statements and that of more modern prophets.

For example, Brigham Young said that no black person will receive the priesthood until every single white (or perhaps more accurately, non black) person has had a chance to receive it.

Current Church policy is that black members can receive the priesthood.

Either Brigham was wrong or current Church policy is wrong.  Both cannot be correct.  

[Traveler]

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

I think you misunderstood.  My statement wasn't about all of Brigham's statements, but only a few.

Sometimes Brigham was right and sometimes he wasn't.

What is considered revelation and official church doctrine has already been discussed.

As far as having it both ways, this was referring to a contradiction between Brigham's statements and that of more modern prophets.

For example, Brigham Young said that no black person will receive the priesthood until every single white (or perhaps more accurately, non black) person has had a chance to receive it.

Current Church policy is that black members can receive the priesthood.

Either Brigham was wrong or current Church policy is wrong.  Both cannot be correct.  

It would be more accurate to say that you do not understand how both could be correct.

 

The Traveler

[zil]

Just now, Anddenex said:

Isn't this the same invitation for all from the Church "to come unto Christ" or us? In my youth, when we lived in Burlington Kansas we had to travel 40 minutes or so to get to Church. I am not sure how this has anything to do with "minorities", but definitely something other than this. This appears to infer too much.

When I was young, we had to travel 30 minutes to a church building downtown.  I'm sure it's not universal.  I imagine there are reasons.  What the reasons are and whether they're right, I don't know.

The existence of a problem, even over a long time, does not mean that no one is willing to solve the problem, nor that no one has ever tried, nor that it's not being worked on.  While we can observe conditions and hear (and logically deduce) some of the impact of those conditions, as well as identify potential changes to the conditions which would, in theory, address those impacts, the older I get, the more aware I am that my assumptions in these regards are generally ill-informed at best.  (In other words, the problems are not (just) what they seem, nor as easily solved as it seems, even if you assume money to not be an issue.)

The other thing I have learned is not to wait for organizations to solve problems.  They rarely do, but if they do, it takes eternity and a day.  Therefore, the people "on the ground" should do the problem solving (note that I did not say the people with the problem - though they must be part of it - but there are also people around them who can help - assuming everyone is willing to humble themselves and sacrifice sufficient to solve the problem).

Hmm.  Yet another thing I have learned is that complaining usually makes things worse, and solving generally makes things better.  This is not the same as denying the problem.  It is the same as acting rather than being acted upon.

(And yes, I think all these things have a lot to do with eliminating various negative -isms and the existence of various manner of -ites.)

[Fether]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It would be more accurate to say that you do not understand how both could be correct.

 

The Traveler

It would also be more accurate to say that the church does not understand how both could be correct.

after all there is no official reason as to why things were the way they were. Perhaps it was God’s desire, perhaps not and it just happened that way.

”Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance.”

- OD2

[Guest Scott]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It would be more accurate to say that you do not understand how both could be correct.

 

The Traveler

It is impossible for both statements to be correct.

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

It would also be more accurate to say that the church does not understand how both could be correct.

after all there is no official reason as to why things were the way they were. Perhaps it was God’s desire, perhaps not and it just happened that way.

”Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance.”

- OD2

not everything that is revealed to prophets are revealed to everybody else.  For example, Mary pondered many things in her heart about Christ when he was born.  In general pears are not cast before swine. 

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Just now, Scott said:

It is impossible for both statements to be correct.

If one assumes the parameters of that which occurs between birth and death - justice, order and just about any logical argument about anything is to some degree incorrect - or seem to have an exception and therefore wrong.  

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Scott said:

 

Was Brigham Young right or wrong when he said (many times and in many words) that no blacks will ever received the priesthood until every single while person had the chance to receive it?  

Was Brigham Young right or wrong when he said that the penalty for interracial marriage will be death on the spot and this will always be so?  

Here is the exact quote (March 8, 1863):

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. 

These are two simple questions.   Please answer them.  It should only take a few words at most. 

And don't say "we don't know" because we most certainty do know the answers to the above questions.    

In my opinion...no...he was not.

Ideas and prophecies can take a very different form than what we expect.

A prime example is the coming of our Lord.  The Jews at the time expected a mighty warrior that would free them from any who ruled over them.  They expected someone to save them politically and militarily.  This did not happen.  The prophecy was not fulfilled in the way they expected.  Instead, the Lord came and he truly did free us of our true captor and made repentance possible as well as redemption from both death and hell.

Today many Jews still do not believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah or their Savior.  We know that he was, but for them, since he didn't come as they expected, they refuse to recognize him as the one prophesied of.

By the year 1960 most of the world at least had a chance to know of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or as many would call them at that time, the Mormons.  They gospel actually HAD travelled to every nation in the world in some way or form.  In Canada, the US, Australia, and Europe most had the opportunity to at least hear about this strange gospel at least once in their lifetime, even if they had not paid much heed to anything else.  Missionaries had travelled throughout Europe at one time, even though after WWII most of Eastern Europe was off limits.

In a sense, one could say that the gospel had gone to the European Gentile already and though it was still being spread, it had been rejected by many.  Thus, I would not say that his statement was necessarily false, but perhaps one's understanding of what he meant is different than how it actually occurred.

PS: In a like vein, with the prophecy that the gospel would be taught in every nation in the entire world, we are literally at that point RIGHT NOW.  With the internet and access that people have, they can literally find the gospel in most places.  Even in censored areas there are ways that people have found about the gospel of Jesus Christ.  It may not be the way that we envision the fulfillment of prophecy, but it MAY be (meaning, I don't know) that we are seeing the very fulfillment of the prophecy in this manner today.  It may not be how we expected or thought it would come about, but it's fulfilled the prophecy all the same.  (just speculation on my part).

Edited October 16, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

 

I think you misunderstood.  My statement wasn't about all of Brigham's statements, but only a few.

Sometimes Brigham was right and sometimes he wasn't.

What is considered revelation and official church doctrine has already been discussed.

As far as having it both ways, this was referring to a contradiction between Brigham's statements and that of more modern prophets.

For example, Brigham Young said that no black person will receive the priesthood until every single white (or perhaps more accurately, non black) person has had a chance to receive it.

Current Church policy is that black members can receive the priesthood.

Either Brigham was wrong or current Church policy is wrong.  Both cannot be correct.  

Brigham Young also remarked that there were times he spoke as Brigham Young and there were times he spoke as a prophet.  He remarked upon this himself.  Surprisingly, he would do both during General Conference, giving a rip roaring talk in the morning and a more gospel and spiritual talk in the evening.

It is VERY hard to tell when he was speaking as a MAN and when he was speaking as a Prophet.  The only thing I can tell is when you see him giving a fire and brimstone type discussion or a fiery temper inflamed speech, most likely it is him talking as a Man.  However, when he is talking gently, calmly, and without the typical Brigham Young fire, it seems that these are the items that we still see as doctrine today.

However, the problem is that it is very hard to tell when he was talking as a Man or a Prophet.  He occasionally (well rarely) identified the instances himself, but overall, it may not be clear.

The questions then are whether you are talking about when he was saying something as a man, or when he said it as a prophet.

Edited October 16, 2018 by JohnsonJones