40 Years: Commemorating the 1978 Priesthood and Temple Revelation


Suzie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

 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.

That's a great point JJ. 

I had a friend who asked me about the famous quote "Man will never walk on the moon, etc, etc" that one of our prophets said. He was super polite about it, not doing it to score points or be rude. I explained to him the difference between the prophets speaking as prophets and as men. My friend understood this 100%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Back when @skippy740 was participating in the forum, we went a few rounds on Perkins and his methods. My position was and is that Perkins—at least at the time—was rather disingenuous in his argument and something of an eel in his presentation.



It is interesting that you mention this..When I watched the DVD (several times), I had a conversation with Margaret about it and I recall telling her that I found some of Marvin's research & exegesis quite bizarre.

Technically the policy dates to 1848, not 1852. This is germane to questions of why we don’t have a record of any revelatory/inspirational impetus behind the policy; because Salt Lake City at this time was still a collection of tents and sod huts, and Young spent much of this period on the road. His contemporaneous record-keeping of pretty much anything left a lot to be desired, as decisions great and small got made on the fly and more-or-less in the heat of battle.



Well, technically Enoch Abel, the son of Elijah received the Priesthood in 1900 and his grandson in 1935. However, Young announced the policy publicly in 1852.

About your explanation on why we might not have a record of the alleged revelation...well yes it is plausible, why not and that's the interesting thing about the ban. MANY possibilities, including as Kimball hinted, the possibility of an "error".


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

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.

 

Yes, this.

President Woodruff, when counseling the future President Snow said that the biggest burden of being a prophet was that people don't understand when he is speaking as a prophet and as a person.  He said that people took every word that came out of his mouth as a prophesy or directly from God.   He told the story about how he came out of a meeting once and commented that it looks like rain.   There was another meeting a few hours later and everyone had their umbrellas with them even though the sky had already cleared.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like a revelation to me. Just because it does not satisfy your requirements doesn't mean it isn't so.



Then let's discuss the following. What makes a revelation binding upon the Saints?

I'm having difficulty considering him a racist with the statement he made about "one of the finest elders of the priesthood" or something like that.



He was talking about Walker Lewis. But when Walker's son married a white woman (both LDS members) and had a child, Young took a completely different turn.

You took one statement of Young, what about the rest? Again, he was a product of his era . I have no doubt that he would be considered racist today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

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.  

That's just gibberish.   

Brigham Young said on several occasions that blacks (those that had the curse of Cain) would not received the priesthood until every single man of every other race had a chance to have the priesthood.    This includes everyone who will ever be born and who ever has been born, and further that the curse of Cain/priesthood ban would be lifted only after everyone else has received their resurrection from the dead (and is is obvious that he was incorrect because this hasn't happened yet).  There are many times he said or implied this. 

Here is just one example.   In this case, he even referred to the black people in the meeting since although they weren't allowed to have the priesthood, blacks were still allowed to be members of the Church and there were black Mormon pioneers that migrated across the plains (they were assigned lands on the East Benches of Salt Lake between Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, which ironically is on of the riches areas of the Salt Lake Valley today).  

This is an exact quote from Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, pages 142-143:

We have this illustrated in the account of Cain and Abel. Cain conversed with his God every day, and knew all about the plan of creating this earth, for his father told him. But, for the want of humility, and through jealousy, and an anxiety to possess the kingdom, and to have the whole of it under his own control, and not allow anybody else the right to say one word, what did he do? He killed his brother. The Lord put a mark on him; and there are some of his children in this room. When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity. He deprived his brother of the privilege of pursuing his journey through life, and of extending his kingdom by multiplying upon the earth; and because he did this, he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God.

[Link omitted.  It's fine to link to the JD, but don't link to a version hosted on an anti-Mormon website.  --JAG]

This is just one of many examples.  

This following statement isn't meant to be a condemnation against anyone posting here, but by reading certain topics, you can definitely see a difference in posts among those who have read and studied the Journal of Discourses and those who have not.  

Anyone who has read and studied the Journal of Discourses will see (without question) that there are a lot of things Brigham Young said that does not march current Church doctrine.  As JohnsonJones also pointed out, not everything that comes out of a prophet's mouth is a direct revelation from God.  

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2018 at 5:27 PM, Scott said:

As JohnsonJones also pointed out, not everything that comes out of a prophet's mouth is a direct revelation from God.  

i don't know.  i hear statements like these, and i really don't get it.  i mean, i get the occasional slightly off-color remark.

But these aren't a little off.  These are flat out, blatantly, hatefully wrong remarks that he spewed in the most vocal ways available to him.  They aren't just wrong now, and OK then.  They were *always* wrong.  Like a 3 foot wide crack in the foundation wrong.  

Death on the spot for interracial marriage, spoken in the Tabernacle?  

[Linking to the JD is fine in principle, but please find an online version that isn't hosted on an anti-Mormon website.  --JAG] 

No opinion on masters whipping and breaking the bones of their slaves, and saying that he believes the slaves should remain in servitude for now, spoken in front of the Utah Legislature?  

[Again--please do not link to anti-Mormon websites.  --JAG]

And @Scott, this is nothing against you - i tend to think you hold some of the most nuanced views here - and i respect that tremendously.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2018 at 6:38 PM, lostinwater said:

i don't know.  i hear statements like these, and i really don't get it.  i mean, i get the occasional slightly off-color remark.

But these aren't a little off.  These are flat out, blatantly, hatefully wrong remarks that he spewed in the most vocal ways available to him.  They aren't just wrong now, and OK then.  They were *always* wrong.  Like a 3 foot wide crack in the foundation wrong.  

Death on the spot for interracial marriage, spoken in the Tabernacle?  

[Link omitted]

No opinion on masters whipping and breaking the bones of their slaves, and saying that he believes the slaves should remain in servitude for now, spoken in front of the Utah Legislature?  

[Link omitted]

And @Scott, this is nothing against you - i tend to think you hold some of the most nuanced views here - and i respect that tremendously.

I know what your saying.   The prophets and apostles aren't and never were perfect.  Only Jesus was.  

When it comes to going directly to the source, here is a direct snip of Joseph Smith's own writings from February 8 1843. I snipped this directly from a scan of his diary.  No one can say that is wasn't transcribed correctly or that it was misunderstood/mistranslated, because here it is in his own handwriting:

js.JPG.f2b0d50725924cd158b939dac2a20627.JPG

See that is says "a prophet is not a prophet; only when he is acting as such".   This came directly from Joseph Smith.  It is in his own hand writing and in his own journal.

Now, let's go to LDS.org and see what is or isn't official doctrine/revelation.   Here is what it says.   This is an exact quote, but with with me highlighting some important sections in bold type:

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2017/02/to-the-point/how-can-i-know-if-something-i-hear-is-official-doctrine?lang=eng

If you wonder if a statement is official doctrine, try to find out where it came from. Is the idea in the scriptures? Has it been taught by the living prophets and apostles? Has it recently been officially published by the Church (such as in general conference, manuals, magazines, and Church websites)? If the answer to each of these questions is no, you can probably safely conclude that it’s not official doctrine.

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, don’t stop there. Keep comparing the statement to the scriptures and other official sources. For instance, don’t assume that a statement made one time by a past or current Church leader is official Church doctrine. 

 FairMormon, while not official doctrine in itself does have an article using official Church sources that explains the difference between Official Church Doctrine and the rest. They use exact quotes from many leaders of the Church.  I won't quote the whole thing here, but it's a good read:

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf

Here are some excerpts:

Latter-day Saints do not believe that Prophets—neither past nor present—are infallible. President Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency, for example, once wrote: “We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President has claimed infallibility.”

-

Lorenzo Snow, who had a testimony that Joseph was a prophet, nevertheless wrote that he saw Joseph’s “imperfections” and “thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him... for I knew that I myself had weaknesses, and I thought there was a chance for me... “We are all liable to err,” wrote Brigham Young “and many may think that a man in my standing ought to be perfect; no such thing.”

-

This one is important.  This would be my answer as to why Brigham Young had the racial views that he did:

Not only were Biblical prophets sometimes wrong, but often they believed in the prevailing—and at times incorrect—views of their day. Likewise, early Mormons understood things differently than we do today. Just as Biblical figures had a strange view about the shape of the earth (Isaiah 11:12) and the motion of the planets (Joshua 10:12–13) so likewise some early LDS leaders had some incorrect views. Joseph Smith and other early Latter-day Saints, for example, most likely believed that North America was the land northward and that South America was the land southward in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon itself does not sustain this view (which supports the claim that Joseph was not the “author” of the Book of Mormon). Along with other frontiersman of the day, Joseph and the early Saints saw no distinction between Indians anywhere in the hemisphere. Therefore to the early Saints, a “Lamanite” was any Indian. We know now that this view is incorrect. Prophets are not raised in cultural vacuums. Moses wasn’t, Abraham wasn’t and neither were Joseph, Brigham, or Gordon B. Hinckley. Non-LDS scholars have recognized that Biblical prophets were wrong about certain cultural beliefs. The Rev. J.R. Dummelow has noted that Biblical prophets each had their “own peculiarities,” their “own education or want of education,” and that they were “each influenced differently… by different experiences…” “Their inspiration,” he explains, “did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties… it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries….” Concerning the author of Genesis, he remarks: “His scientific knowledge may be bounded by the horizon of the age in which he lived, but the religious truths he teaches are irrefutable and eternal......An evolving, growing, living Church, virtually guarantees that not all truth will be known on all things at all times. And when revelations are received, when new information is given, it’s only logical that such new information would be interpreted according to the understanding of the day.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now concerning Official Church Doctrine as it relates to the above (notice that the below states that even conference talks are not official doctrine):

Not every utterance by every general authority constitutes “official” doctrine. “There are many subjects,” we read in the First Presidency-authorized Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “about which the scriptures are not clear and about which the Church has made no official pronouncements. In such matters, one can find differences of opinion among Church members and leaders. Until the truth of these matters is made known by revelation, there is room for different levels of understanding and interpretation of unsettled issues.” Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.” This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.”  To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”

-

I admit that I really do like this paragraph:

How can we know if teachings, which have not been voted upon, are true? J. Reuben Clark explains that when “we, ourselves, are ‘moved by the Holy Ghost,’” then we know that the speakers are teaching true doctrine. “In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.  It is likely that the Lord has allowed (and will continue to allow) his servants to make mistakes—it’s all part of progression and the growing process. We are not forced to accept teachings with which we disagree. We’re supposed to receive confirmation from the spirit if what is taught is the doctrine of God, and of course we’re the one who put ourselves in jeopardy if we fail to accept things which will bless us.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Scott said:

See that is says "a prophet is not a prophet; only when he is acting as such".   This came directly from Joseph Smith.  It is in his own hand writing and in his own journal.

Thank-you @Scott

That is a far more thorough and thoughtful reply than my post deserved.

Anyways, not looking to derail this thread, so i'll just say that i respect people who justify such remarks that way.  i'm just not one who does.  It's either a perfectly reasonable or totally absurd thing to do - and we'll find out which when we die.  i know very good and very bad people on both sides.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours 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.  

No, I understood you were speaking about a few of his statements, not all of them. I am also in understanding that as with all these new policies (which have been given through revelation) we only know the revelation, we do not know all the conversations that were had before such events. We do not have all that was said.

However, maybe I have misunderstood, as when I read your comment I hear someone saying President Young was wrong with the priesthood and temple ban, or the current leadership is wrong. If you are indeed saying this, then you are inferring far beyond your priesthood stewardship and lack of keys and I can readily disregard and say you are wrong, as both can be correct. The reasons one gives can indeed be wrong (as already expressed by Elder Oaks). The revelation can still be right.

If you are merely stating one of BY's quotes was wrong, then indeed this is a truth for everyone. Imagine if everyone pulled up what we have said, and how many times we would be wrong? When quotes are opposing, obviously one is right and one is wrong. But I don't see you just specifying a quote. It appears you are clearly inferring the former, "The priesthood ban was wrong, or the current brethren are wrong." If so, both can be correct, and what @Traveler shared is more accurate. If I am wrong regarding what your statements are implying, then you can clarify.

 

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

However, maybe I have misunderstood, as when I read your comment I hear someone saying President Young was wrong with the priesthood and temple ban, or the current leadership is wrong.

At the very least, Brigham Young was wrong on many things.   Many things he said contradict current Church teachings and both can't be right.

Quote

If you are indeed saying this, then you are inferring far beyond your priesthood stewardship and lack of keys and I can readily disregard and say you are wrong, as both can be correct. The reasons one gives can indeed be wrong (as already expressed by Elder Oaks). The revelation can still be right.

Elder Oaks isn't always right either.   

As far as is known, there is no revelation behind the priesthood ban.  We are simply told that we simply don't know the reason behind the ban.  For all we know, it could have been by revelation or it could have merely been a product of the time period that Brigham Young was living in.  We don't know.   I disagree that official doctrine of the Church is that the ban was a revelation.   What is your source that the ban on priesthood was a revelation?   I can find no such official Church doctrine stating this.  George Albert Smith did at one time say that it was done by revelation, but this was over 80 years later and also not official Church doctrine. See my last post as to the fallibility of prophets and what the prophets themselves said, including Joseph Smith.  

FairMormon is not official doctrine (unless they are quoting official doctrine, but they do have some good articles.   Here is one on the reason for the ban:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban#Question:_What_do_we_know_about_the_origin_of_the_priesthood_ban_on_Church_members_of_African_descent.3F

Excerpts:

Question: What do we know about the origin of the priesthood ban on Church members of African descent?

The origin of the priesthood ban is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Its origins are not clear, and this affected both how members and leaders have seen the ban, and the steps necessary to rescind it. The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban, although a number of Church leaders offered theories as to the reason for its existence.  

-

Given that none of these theories regarding the reason for the ban is accepted today, Church members have generally taken one of three perspectives:

  • Some members assume that the ban was based on revelation to Joseph Smith, and was continued by his successors until President Kimball. However, Joseph Smith did ordain several men of African descent to the priesthood.
  • Some believe that the ban did not originate with Joseph Smith, but was implemented by Brigham Young. The evidence supports the idea that Brigham Young implemented it, but there is no record of an actual revelation having been received regarding it.
  • Some believe that the ban began as a series of administrative policy decisions, rather than a revealed doctrine, and drew partly upon ideas regarding race common in mid-19th century America. The passage of time gave greater authority to this policy than intended.

The difficulty in deciding between these options arises because:

  • there is no contemporary account of a revelation underlying the ban; but
  • many early members nevertheless believed that there had been such a revelation; and
  • priesthood ordination of African blacks was a rare event, which became even more rare with time.

So you can count me in the category above as fitting into the third category of "Some believe that the ban began as a series of administrative policy decisions, rather than a revealed doctrine, and drew partly upon ideas regarding race common in mid-19th century America. The passage of time gave greater authority to this policy than intended".   That's what category I would fit into. 

If you don't fit into this category; fine; even if you do believe that it was done by revelation.  We really don't know.    As state above, there is no record of an actual revelation received by Brigham Young.   If such a revelation existed, we don't have a record of it now (unless you know of such a record).  

Quote

It appears you are clearly inferring the former, "The priesthood ban was wrong, or the current brethren are wrong." If so, both can be correct, and what @Traveler shared is more accurate. If I am wrong, then you can clarify.

Let me be clear and to the point.   Either Brigham Young or current Church leadership was wrong that the ban was or wasn't because of the Curse of Cain (it was always stated as so by Brigham Young).  Both cannot be correct.   As for which one is right, I choose that the current Church leadership is correct in that we don't know why the ban was in place.  I believe Brigham Young was wrong (and so does the current Church leadership) in that it was because of the curse of Cain.

The same thing goes with the lift on the ban.    Brigham Young said that blacks would receive the priesthood one day, but only after every single non-black man had a chance to receive the priesthood, including all of those who lived in the past, present, and future.   He also said it wouldn't happen until every single non-black received their resurrection.

Since blacks can now receive the priesthood and since all non-black (men) have not had the chance to have the priesthood, nor have all non-blacks received their resurrection, both cannot be correct.  

I choose that current Church leadership is correct in allowing the blacks to have the priesthood, even though it goes against what Brigham Young said.  I can't prove which statement is correct, but both cannot be.  

The prophets themselves say that they can sometimes be wrong (see the post on official Church doctrine where they themselves say so).   Although they admit it freely, it seems to be more an issue with the general membership than the prophets.   Everything that they have ever said or done isn't official Church doctrine (unless they say that it is).  

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

As far as is known, there is no revelation behind the priesthood ban.

Hey, that's cheap and easy. Let me play, too.

As far as is known, there is revelation behind the Priesthood ban.

Lookie thar! An equally true statement!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hey, that's cheap and easy. Let me play, too.

As far as is known, there is revelation behind the Priesthood ban.

Lookie thar! An equally true statement!

Fine.   As far as known, there is no written record of a revelation behind the priesthood ban.   Unless you know of one.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott said:

Fine.   As far as known, there is no written record of a revelation behind the priesthood ban.   Unless you know of one.   

As far as is known, there is a written record of the revelation behind the Priesthood ban. We just haven't found it yet.

This is not nearly as fun as I thought it would be. It's all just conjecture. Almost as if...I don't know...we don't know why the Priesthood ban was instituted. How weird.

Maybe if we keep talking and arguing about it and making up assertions, it will all become clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 Almost as if...I don't know...we don't know why the Priesthood ban was instituted.

I never said differently.   Now that I re-read your post, perhaps I misunderstood that you were implying that the ban was put in place by revelation.   If you say that we don't know either way, then I agree with you.

Quote

Maybe if we keep talking and arguing about it and making up assertions, it will all become clear.

For the record, I always, or try to always provide direct quotes to sources, or state anything that isn't a direct quote or summary as only my conjecture.   I always try to use direct quotes from Church leadership (both present and historical) or scripture whenever possible (which in my opinion is what we all should be doing when ever possible).   There is no making up of assertions, unless I state that something is only my opinion.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MarginOfError said:
14 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.

 

Yeah @Carborendum. Stop acting white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lostinwater said:

No opinion on masters whipping and breaking the bones of their slaves, and saying that he believes the slaves should remain in servitude for now, spoken in front of the Utah Legislature?  

Just FYI*, Brigham Young said he had a low opinion of master whipping and breaking the bones of their slaves (based on the source you linked).

Quote

As for masters knocking them down and whipping them and breaking the limbs of their servants, I have as little opinion of that as any person can have;

 

*And I'm pointing it out in an attempt to prevent @zil from nostalgizing over the good ol' days of oratory and letter writing. And so @Vort doesn't use the occasion to encourage us to read Jane Austen.

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scott said:

At the very least, Brigham Young was wrong on many things.   Many things he said contradict current Church teachings and both can't be right.

This is a moot point. There isn't any argument with regards to prophets speaking as man, or prophets speaking as prophets.

Quote

Elder Oaks isn't always right either.   

This is a cop-out. The quote from Elder Oaks comes from a Church student manual published by the Church. I could easily say, "Scott isn't right all the time." Moot.

Quote

As far as is known, there is no revelation behind the priesthood ban.  We are simply told that we simply don't know the reason behind the ban.  For all we know, it could have been by revelation or it could have merely been a product of the time period that Brigham Young was living in.  We don't know.   I disagree that official doctrine of the Church is that the ban was a revelation.   What is your source that the ban on priesthood was a revelation?   I can find no such official Church doctrine stating this.  George Albert Smith did at one time say that it was done by revelation, but this was over 80 years later and also not official Church doctrine. See my last post as to the fallibility of prophets and what the prophets themselves said, including Joseph Smith.  

As pertaining to student manual and the quote given by Elder Oaks, we can clearly see the Church is teaching that not every revelation is given a reason, and man can have their own opinions on the revelation and when they do they are on their own. The Church doesn't negate it was by revelation either, which you are inferring with your statements of BY was wrong or current Church authority are wrong. This is a false dichotomy which is what you are presenting.

As for me, I would tend to side with a Prophet he lived closer to the time of the ban than you or I. Why would George Albert Smith declare it was by revelation? The amount of time is irrelevant. As specified with Suzie, the Church is wise not to declare something we do not have an exact record of. They also do not declare it was not by revelation. Nor do they declare BY was wrong with the ban. They do declare given "reasons" for the ban are disavowed. Official doctrine from the Church in no way supports your declaration.

I would be more interested in George Albert Smiths words, where is this quote?

Quote

FairMormon is not official doctrine (unless they are quoting official doctrine, but they do have some good articles.   Here is one on the reason for the ban:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban#Question:_What_do_we_know_about_the_origin_of_the_priesthood_ban_on_Church_members_of_African_descent.3F

Excerpts:

Question: What do we know about the origin of the priesthood ban on Church members of African descent?

The origin of the priesthood ban is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Its origins are not clear, and this affected both how members and leaders have seen the ban, and the steps necessary to rescind it. The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban, although a number of Church leaders offered theories as to the reason for its existence.  

-

Given that none of these theories regarding the reason for the ban is accepted today, Church members have generally taken one of three perspectives:

  • Some members assume that the ban was based on revelation to Joseph Smith, and was continued by his successors until President Kimball. However, Joseph Smith did ordain several men of African descent to the priesthood.
  • Some believe that the ban did not originate with Joseph Smith, but was implemented by Brigham Young. The evidence supports the idea that Brigham Young implemented it, but there is no record of an actual revelation having been received regarding it.
  • Some believe that the ban began as a series of administrative policy decisions, rather than a revealed doctrine, and drew partly upon ideas regarding race common in mid-19th century America. The passage of time gave greater authority to this policy than intended.

The difficulty in deciding between these options arises because:

  • there is no contemporary account of a revelation underlying the ban; but
  • many early members nevertheless believed that there had been such a revelation; and
  • priesthood ordination of African blacks was a rare event, which became even more rare with time.

So you can count me in the category above as fitting into the third category of "Some believe that the ban began as a series of administrative policy decisions, rather than a revealed doctrine, and drew partly upon ideas regarding race common in mid-19th century America. The passage of time gave greater authority to this policy than intended".   That's what category I would fit into. 

If you don't fit into this category; fine; even if you do believe that it was done by revelation.  We really don't know.    As state above, there is no record of an actual revelation received by Brigham Young.   If such a revelation existed, we don't have a record of it now (unless you know of such a record).  

Let me be clear and to the point.   Either Brigham Young or current Church leadership was wrong that the ban was or wasn't because of the Curse of Cain (it was always stated as so by Brigham Young).  Both cannot be correct.   As for which one is right, I choose that the current Church leadership is correct in that we don't know why the ban was in place.  I believe Brigham Young was wrong (and so does the current Church leadership) in that it was because of the curse of Cain.

The same thing goes with the lift on the ban.    Brigham Young said that blacks would receive the priesthood one day, but only after every single non-black man had a chance to receive the priesthood, including all of those who lived in the past, present, and future.   He also said it wouldn't happen until every single non-black received their resurrection.

Thus by your own words you have proven Elder Oaks to be correct, which gives irony to the following statement, "Elder Oaks isn't always right either." We already see that Elder Oaks is making a point that the reasons behind the ban were not correct. He also states revelations do not need to have a reason -- this is true.

The Church has disavowed all reasons given previously as to the ban. The Church has not declared there was no revelation, simply that we do not have its exact origin. The notion of stating BY's reason is once again moot/irrelevant. The revelation or policy can be true, while the reasons behind it untrue. So your statement is false, both can indeed be correct. You are insinuating that with BY's given reason makes the policy false, because of current teaching of current leadership. This isn't accurate, nor correct.

Quote

Since blacks can now receive the priesthood and since all non-black (men) have not had the chance to have the priesthood, nor have all non-blacks received their resurrection, both cannot be correct.  

I choose that current Church leadership is correct in allowing the blacks to have the priesthood, even though it goes against what Brigham Young said.  I can't prove which statement is correct, but both cannot be.  

The prophets themselves say that they can sometimes be wrong (see the post on official Church doctrine where they themselves say so).   Although they admit it freely, it seems to be more an issue with the general membership than the prophets.   Everything that they have ever said or done isn't official Church doctrine (unless they say that it is). 

Again, no one is arguing what BY said and that all he said was true. If you peruse my statements (on other topics), I am one that has mentioned multiple times Joseph Smith's quote about man in comparison to the prophet. Yet, it is funny how people pull the hammer out with BY, while pulling a feather out for their own words. Let me hammer BY, while I tickle myself.

I am aware of JoD and how now, even the Church points out, that not everything may have been transcribed correctly. This isn't new. I new this 20 years ago from the mission. So, my question to you, are you reading BY's exact words or a paraphrase and best attempt to right down his words who may have added his own thoughts to the statement BY made? Which causes myself a little humor when someone makes the following comment, "This following statement isn't meant to be a condemnation against anyone posting here, but by reading certain topics, you can definitely see a difference in posts among those who have read and studied the Journal of Discourses and those who have not." So, I am thinking your discernment is a little off.

Personally, I am in the boat/category that God leads his prophets on all policies in the Church (especially those that affect his sons and daughters in potential harmful ways). Many people said Moses was wrong, and Moses was translated while they continued to murmur in the wilderness. I am not interested in "presentism" where I judge my past brothers through our present eyes. I could only imagine how the city of Enoch would be judging us right now as a people. I am pretty sure we are living pretty wicked lives in comparison to their lives. So, if people want to judge BY by present day standards, I would say, let them, but hopefully they are removing the beam from their own eye, which I doubt many actually are.

This means, I am for the unity behind the current prophet and apostles. I am also for BY. I am definitely not in the boat/category that wants to "pit" the current prophet with a past prophet "reasons." We are already informed that reasons can be wrong, while the revelation or policy can be true.

But, your answer does give me evidence to my previous statement, " If you are indeed saying this, then you are inferring far beyond your priesthood stewardship and lack of keys and I can readily disregard and say you are wrong."

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:
Quote

 Almost as if...I don't know...we don't know why the Priesthood ban was instituted.

I never said differently.

I think you did. But even if you can argue successfully that you didn't, you certainly implied it with all your might.

15 hours ago, Scott said:

Brigham Young said that the reason for the ban was because of the curse of Cain.

...

Church doctrine now days is that Brigham Young was wrong.   

...

Both statements (Brigham's and from the more recent prophets) cannot be right.

Either Brigham's statements weren't revelation or the more statements weren't revelation.   You can't have it both ways. 

Your implication is unmistakable: Brigham Young introduced the Priesthood ban because he was a hateful racist. You did not say those words, but no reasonable person reading your post can fail to take your clear meaning.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Now that I re-read your post, perhaps I misunderstood that you were implying that the ban was put in place by revelation.   If you say that we don't know either way, then I agree with you.

Your own leading questions refute this.

11 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?

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. 

What was the purpose of these questions? To establish Brigham Young -- a prophet of God and one of the greatest men of the 19th (or any other) century -- as a hateful racist. But why would you want to do such a thing?

Seriously, Scott, why? What would be the purpose of establishing Young as a despicable man? The only reason I can think of is so that you can wave off the Priesthood ban as the product of his diseased mind. It's almost like you want to discredit Brigham Young as a source, thus allowing you to discredit any decision he made that you don't like. If only you had said something to that effect...oh, wait. You did.

10 hours ago, Scott said:

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.  

Amazing how you offer the very same apology (bolded above) that so many antiMormons and discontent Mormons offer to wave off anyone who doesn't agree with their leading questions and foregone conclusion about the racist Brigham Young and his origination of the Priesthood ban.

And then, of course, there is your disturbing tendency to frame everything in an explicitly negative way. For example (and hardly the only one, just a recent one):

1 hour ago, Scott said:

As far as is known, there is no revelation behind the priesthood ban.

But as I pointed out, as far as is known, there is revelation behind the Priesthood ban. Yet you choose to frame it as a negative. I wonder why. (But I don't wonder very much.)

Would you care to offer another explanation? Because I'd love to hear one that doesn't paint you as simply another Mormon malcontent desperately virtue-signalling his appalled attitude toward the whole Priesthood ban business. So far, that appears to be the shoe that fits.

You're obviously reasonably intelligent, and it looks like you think about things. Both of these are potential virtues. But it looks to me like you're so eager to distance yourself from any charge of "racism" that you're willing -- happy -- to throw Brigham Young under the bus if that makes you look like a Racial Equality Warrior. You are ashamed of the Church's historic policy of denying Priesthood ordination to black African men and denying temple ordinances to those of black African descent.

My suggestion to you is that you quit being ashamed of the Church. Its history is there, and it's real, and it's never going to go away, ever ever ever EVER. So make peace with it. Hint: Name-calling previous prophets and men who were (to be blunt) far greater than you will ever achieve in this life is not any way to make peace with history.

As you now admit, we don't know why the Priesthood ban was instituted. So why do you assume it must have been because of 19th-century racism? If you truly can't leave it alone, why not assume it was indeed instituted of God? Why not at least allow that as an honest possibility? Are you really that desperate to virtue-signal your anti-racism? Because I have to tell you, that's kind of pathetic.

Seriously, let it go. Quit fighting history and trying to prove your virtue. Instead, prove your virtue by living the gospel and showing some loyalty to the kingdom of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Your implication is unmistakable: Brigham Young introduced the Priesthood ban because he was a hateful racist.

That's not true.   The only opinion I hold is that was a product of his circumstances and the time, which I clearly said was my opinion.  

It seems to me that you are the one being hateful on this thread.  Is that your intention?    

Also, I would suggest that you at least read the article below, whether or not you believe it:


https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Racial_statements_by_Church_leaders#Question:_Was_Brigham_Young_a_racist.3F

Quote

To establish Brigham Young -- a prophet of God and one of the greatest men of the 19th (or any other) century -- as a hateful racist. 

My point was to point out that everything that a prophet or Church leader has ever said isn't considered revelation.   Brigham Young said it.  Joseph Smith said it.   Why don't you believe them?  

I used exact quotes by Church leaders, from the 19th century to the present, to back up what I said.   Why have you not done the same?

Quote

So why do you assume it must have been because of 19th-century racism?

I do not know without any doubt as to why there was a ban.

There are many reasons why I personally tend to believe that the ban was not instituted by revelation.  For one, I believe that the following scripture (2 Nephi 26:33) says that all can partake of the goodness of God.   To me that means temple blessings as well. It does not say that certain people can only partake of part of the goodness.   The scripture also says that all are alike unto God (blacks being mentioned).

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

So why do you assume that the ban was a revelation?  This is a sincere question.

Quote

 If you truly can't leave it alone, why not assume it was indeed instituted of God? Why not at least allow that as an honest possibility?


I already said it was possible.   What is not possible, however, according to current Church teaching, is the reason for the ban.   Current Church teaching is that we don't know why the ban was instituted.    Brigham Young said that it was because of the curse of Cain.  This is very clear. 

What is also very clear is that Brigham Young wasn't always right, regardless if the priesthood ban was a revelation or not.  Neither were any of the other prophets. They admit this.   Why can't you?   I am willing to admit that I can be wrong and fully admit that there is only one who lived on earth whom was perfect.   That person/being wasn't Brigham Young and it certainly wasn't me. 

All mortal men an women are fallible.  God does not dictate every single thing a prophet says or does.   If so, that prophet wouldn't have the opportunity to grow.  God doesn't want to dictate to a person every single thing that a person has to do.   Perhaps God allows prophets to also make mistakes because that is how we grow and learn.

It has been said many, many times by Church leaders that we are to learn and grow from our mistakes.  

Elder Dieter F. Uctdorf once said; "We all make mistakes,  but our destiny is not determined by the number of times we stumble but by the number of times we rise up, dust ourselves off, and move forward".   While that is applicable to individuals, can't it be applicable to the Church as a whole?

The following is only my own opinion, rather than Church Doctrine.  I have no Church sources to back this up, so take it as you will. I'd rather just use official Church sources rather than opinions, but since you keep asking me why I have certain opinions, let's explore that.  

Other than the statement that we don't know why there was a ban on the priesthood, my own opinion is that the Lord allowed it to happen because he wanted us to grow as a Church.   He wanted us and the prophets to work it out ourselves as much as possible and to become more loving on our own, without having everything dictated to us.

Now days, the Church is very loving and open to people of all races.   They condemn all racism an all hatred of any kind.   

If the Lord simply dictated to us back in the 1800's that we should be more loving towards all people, would we be as loving today?   Or would it be better for us to work this out partially on our own with sincere prayer over a period of decades from both prophets and the general Church members?  

I don't know, but I do wonder.   The Israelites during the Exodus did had to have almost everything dictated to them and look what happened there.  

From reading and studying Scriptures, Church History, Church doctrine, etc., I don't think the Lord wants to dictate to us every single thing that we should do.  He also wants us to our own part and to do our own part, with the assistance of prayer to do as much as we can to figure things out.   If we are off track, but still sincerely trying to follow God, we will eventually be corrected when the time comes.  Such is the case with the Church.

That is my own opinion.  It is not Church doctrine.

 

Quote

Quit fighting history and trying to prove your virtue.

I study history, not fight it.  I also provide real historical quotes and sources.   These sources aren't from the antis, but from our own Church leaders and sources.    

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for me, concerning this thread and how it fits in the big scheme of things, in the past (even the recent past) I have struggled with my testimony at times due to certain scriptures or statements made by previous prophets. The thing is that I was judging them by expecting them to be perfect.   They were not.  Neither am I.   

Warning; the following is my opinion:

Forgiving and excepting others faults and acknowledging that no one, save Jesus is perfect is an important growth process if you really want to deeply study  the Church history and scriptures.   Expecting a prophet or Church leader (of any time period and of any calling) to be perfect or expecting that everything they have said or ever will say to be perfect will lead to disappointment.

You simply have to admit that although they were good men or women, that they are or were human.   All knowledge we have isn't poured onto the Church all at once.   It is always line upon line, precept upon precept; and yes, Church doctrine (much of which is unofficial) or understanding does change over time. 

If you have the expectation that Church doctrine will always be the same, and will never change then you will be disappointed.  The basics may stay the same, but there have been and always will (at least until the second coming of Christ at least) be changes.

As said, the Lord doesn't dictate every single thing to us.  Sometimes He does dictate certain revelations, be he also leaves it up to us as individuals and to us as a Church to work out a lot of things on our own.   If He didn't do this, then how much would we really grow?

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, it goes both ways. As much as some of you (general "you") do not want others to state that the ban was not divinely inspired through revelation, please understand then that you shouldn't say it was because the modern-day Church did not make such proclamation and there is a very clear reason why. If it was (without any doubt) the Church will make that statement.

But, the Church is trying to do things right and they have declared "Church records offer no clear insights into the ORIGINS of this practice". I think the statement is beyond clear They do NOT know how it all started. We can all agree with that. Then why insist in calling it a revelation? I think policy/practice is a term that opens BOTH possibilities.

The following are some excepts from the essay on Race and The Priesthood:




The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, INCLUDING THEIR RELIGION








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.1According 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.12 Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.








By the late 1940s and 1950s, RACIAL INTEGRATION was becoming more COMMON in American life. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.





https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#9

This is my personal interpretation. In these statements (you can read the whole essay), the Church is hinting (or some would say, stating) that there was a clear cultural, race factor influencing the decision for the restriction.

Edited by Suzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Guys, it goes both ways. As much as some of you (general "you") do not want others to state that the ban was not divinely inspired through revelation

Who says it wasn't?  This is the thing that is dividing the opinions here. 

"We don't know" means "We don't know."  It does NOT mean "There was no revelation."  That is 100% your projection.  You have yet to make any substantive argument to the contrary.  All I've heard is that you declare it so.  When we argue A=A, that is a given.  When you argue A=B, then the onus is on you to prove it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Suzie said:

Guys, it goes both ways. As much as some of you (general "you") do not want others to state that the ban was not divinely inspired through revelation, please understand then that you shouldn't say it was because the modern-day Church did not make such proclamation and there is a very clear reason why. If it was (without any doubt) the Church will make that statement.

But, the Church is trying to do things right and they have declared "Church records offer no clear insights into the ORIGINS of this practice". I think the statement is beyond clear They do NOT know how it all started. We can all agree with that. Then why insist in calling it a revelation? I think policy/practice is a term that opens BOTH possibilities.

The following are some excepts from the essay on Race and The Priesthood:

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#9

This is my personal interpretation. In these statements (you can read the whole essay), the Church is hinting (or some would say, stating) that there was a clear cultural, race factor influencing the decision for the restriction.

Suzie, I can only speak for myself, it isn't the personal belief that is bothersome if someone does not believe it to have been "revelation." It is in how they approach and specify their thoughts and feeling with regard to one of God's chosen servants -- Brigham Young.

The highlighted portion is the double edged sword we are speaking on. The priesthood and temple ban dealt with race, this can't be argued. What is being implied is what is being argued, which I don't think the Church is "hinting" to at all, but only specifying accurate history of the time. The Lord can specify a specific policy with regards to race, without it being racist (as described/defined by present day standards) -- we are all of Gods sons and daughters and nothing He does is racist, even if something is done toward a race. What is being implied is that Brigham Young was just a racist and acted on his own volition and forced the hand of 14 other brethren who just simply went along with it because they were racist also.

Those who are implying this was "just" a policy, not from God, will have to ponder more thoughtfully why President McKay when he prayed to have the ban removed, the Lord remained still, and President McKay received no such impression. If not from God, not His will, why did God remain silent then with President McKay?

Quote

After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.

This whole thing could have been solved and removed much earlier, but God remained still.

In light of the essay, I would say it is more wise also that people do not make hints, or imply what the Church did not say either with regards to it being "racist." We should simply keep with what is stated.

We already find agreement that the Church is wise is not stating it a "revelation" as we do not have the exact origin. As we do not have the exact origin, it is unwise for people to say it wasn't a revelation. This will lead people toward disregarding prophets, which scripturally has never been profitable, unless you can show me one verse of scripture where the people disobeyed the Lord's servant and they were OK. Scriptural history is repetitive. Disregard and not follow the prophet, leads to forbidden paths and God's wrath -- nothing I want. :)

Edit: Just so I am clear as I am responding to you, this statement of mine, "It is in how they approach and specify their thoughts and feeling with regard to one of God's chosen servants -- Brigham Young," is not toward you. Our conversation has been on what has been said.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says it wasn't? This is the thing that is dividing the opinions here.



"We don't know" means "We don't know." It does NOT mean "There was no revelation."



That's exactly the point I am trying to make. We do NOT know means "we do not know". Then since we cannot state that it was NOT a revelation since "we do NOT know", calling it a REVELATION when "we do not know" is a moot point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share