More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith

[Carborendum]

9 hours ago, SilentOne said:

In 2015, a policy was announced about not allowing baptism of children with married gay parents(? - I don't remember the exact details) to be baptized without first presidency approval. In 2019, that requirement was removed. As I recall, both times, revelation was cited. That caused confusion and contributed to faith crises.

I believed them about the revelation both times and still believe there was good reason for both changes.

So I may not understand why He'd go back and forth about the priesthood, but don't see a reason not to believe that He might.

There was a public statement about it.  I can't find the source just now, so I'll summarize to the best of my recollection.

They needed to put the brakes on something they were not certain about.  So, they instituted the policy to slow the wheels down until they received revelation on the topic.  They had many decades of experience with individuals and homosexual couples . 

But since the laws recognizing legal status for homosexual marriages and allowing them to adopt and have AI births, they were in an area where they recognized that they had neither experience nor revelation on the topic.  They had to figure things out and ask for guidance from the Lord.  And sometimes revelation is slow in coming.

Eventually, they did receive guidance from the Lord on the next few steps to take.

Quote

9 ¶ Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

  -- Isaiah 28

...from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope!

  -- D&C 128:21

Sometimes we get this impression that the Lord will give his law all at once and let it stand forever.  Even Joseph Smith received revelation line upon line.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Carborendum

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Maverick said:

I think that's debatable. In the case of number 1, black members would have been wrongfully denied priesthood and temple blessings for at least 126 years and false racist beliefs would have been taught as true doctrine from God from the highest authorities of the church. That's highly problematic, but for some reason this is preferable to many people than God having instituted the ban and later revoked it for the reasons his prophets taught for over century. I find that pretty mind boggling to be honest. 

You keep accusing me of this, but since you refuse to provide any alternative explanations for the evidence or provide any reasoning for why you claim that my scholarship is poor and that I'm employing poor logic, your declaration is meaningless. It rings completely hollow, no matter how many times you repeat it, unless you are willing to back it up. 

Does the covenant path include believing the words of God's prophets? Does it include believing the scriptures and the doctrinal explanations of them from the prophets and the apostles? In my book it does. 

The covenant path does not require poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology, though it does accommodate those who do because the Lord enables anyone to repent of spiritual and moral issues and improve upon their other limitations.

This should address your concerns about debating whether the Church was led astray and the basis for faith in and sustaining the prophets.

Specific to conclusions other than yours, they abound in this thread so I see no need to repeat them.

Edited December 18, 2024 by CV75

[laronius]

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Sometimes the logic and wisdom we use to try to connect the dots and fill in the blanks of God's dealings with man simply falls short of the full truth. Even if you can't see any other reasonable alternative to your well thought out interpretation of such things there is still a fair chance that you are wrong. That's not to say it's wrong to try to draw conclusions, just recognize the limitations of that conclusion. 

This is not a true apples to apples comparison but I think still instructive. Polygamy is a principle lived only when the Lord sees fit with a spiritual purpose as it's impetus: raising seed unto the Lord. But when the Lord commanded the saints to stop living it, it wasn't because "you have raised enough seed into me." It appeared to be more of a practical response to the circumstances of the times. A combination of external pressures, varying degrees of faithfulness among the believers, and of course God's eternal purposes, often factor into the why and what of His dealings with man and the implementation of His gospel. We see other examples of this as well such as implementation of the law of consecration, restrictions on who the gospel was preached to in Christ's day, and the allowance of divorce. Some may interpret these things as inconsistencies in God's dealings with us and a reason for doubt. But we only see through the glass darkly in such matters and need to recognize just how omniscient we are not. We also need to be okay with these seeming inconsistencies because there will likely be more in the future. They may in fact play a large role in how the saints are tested going forward.

 

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

10 hours ago, Maverick said:

Does the covenant path include believing the words of God's prophets? Does it include believing the scriptures and the doctrinal explanations of them from the prophets and the apostles? In my book it does. 

The covenant path does not require poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology

If you want to reduce the official doctrine that was taught by the prophets and apostles for well over a century to this, be my guest. The church's Race and the Priesthood essay does not do this, though. That would be all you. 

We both know that the covenant path, as taught today in the church, does include believing what the current prophet and apostles teach. So at the very least, believing what the prophets and apostles taught about the priesthood ban would have been part of the covenant path for members of the church during the 130+ years that it was taught as the official doctrine. 

[Just_A_Guy]

On 12/16/2024 at 2:28 PM, CV75 said:

I don't think the essay critiques the ban, it just states the best currently-understood facts about it and disavows some specific pseudo-doctrinal theories supporting it. Which prophet started the ban and whatever they taught that was brought into justifying it is a matter of historical scholarship, and pales in comparison to the keys of salvation and exaltation they exercise to our benefit. This is why I think over the Church's history our Prophets and Apostles have leaned more and more into the covenants: that is what is most important. The Church History Office makes the world a better place much like BYU does, by carrying a semi-authoritative voice of the Church in historical and academic matters respectively. But this is only to bring people to Christ through the covenant path, where correct doctrine distills collectively, individually, and in both cases through the keys as exercised by the Lord's authorized servants. Sometimes this distillation takes time, and the Lord is patient and graceful whether it comes fast or slow.

I don’t mean to be rude in doing a sort of “FIFY” post; I’m just limited in time and feel like the above may be the most efficient way of expressing qualified agreement.   

[Just_A_Guy]

16 hours ago, Maverick said:

2) If Brigham Young was right to institute the ban, then according to all of the associated teachings, Joseph Smith would have been wrong to freely ordain black men. Which would beg the question of why he would have had such a huge blind spot, considering all of his other documented teachings on the subject, including Abraham 1. This weakens the confidence we have in the inspiration of Joseph Smith. 
 

I don’t see this as a problem, actually.

1) The ban was always temporary in nature and if delaying its implementation meant that a couple of specific people who God wanted to wield the priesthood were able to wield it—for however limited a time—then I don’t see that as a problem.

2)  Even if Abel’s and Lewis’s ordinations were mistakes from the get-go:  the restoration was by its nature incremental; and (as JS told BY when discussing the endowment) some of the things Joseph Smith “set up” were not yet complete/correct in all their particulars.  Smith was certainly a “prophet’s prophet”, but that didn’t make him infallible or make his teachings or practices immune to further development after his death.

[Just_A_Guy]

15 hours ago, zil2 said:

 

IMO, it seems unlikely that it would go on and off like that: OK during Joseph Smith's time, not OK from Brigham Young through President Kimball.  I can only imagine that being the case if the Lord did it because of the weakness of men (like divorce) rather than for some other reason.  But it would create confusion if it were handled this way - what happens to those already ordained and who have received temple ordinances?  God isn't the author of confusion, so it seems unlikely He would handle it in a way He would know would create confusion.  Heaven knows, though, and no answer to this question is going to impact my faith or life in the gospel.

I think we sometimes forget what a statistically infinitesimal portion of Church membership African-Americans comprised during the periods in question.  I don’t believe *any* AA Latter-day Saint is recorded to have received the Nauvoo endowment (Abel apparently did receive his initiatory ordinances in Kirtland).  Nauvoo apparently had 22 black residents as of 1843, out of a total population of between 12,000 and 16,000 people—not quite two thousandths of one percent of the Nauvoo membership.

I’m not convinced that the notion that the Church might attract large numbers of black converts—let alone the necessity of developing a consistent, uniform policy towards them—was really on anyone’s radar screen at that point in time.

[Maverick]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Even if Abel’s and Lewis’s ordinations were mistakes from the get-go:  the restoration was by its nature incremental; and (as JS told BY when discussing the endowment) some of the things Joseph Smith “set up” were not yet complete/correct in all their particulars.  Smith was certainly a “prophet’s prophet”, but that didn’t make him infallible or make his teachings or practices immune to further development after his death.

Agreed. 

However, prophets and apostles taught that Joseph Smith taught the ban and revoked Elijah Abel's priesthood once he discovered it:

George Q. Cannon

Quote

President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet [Joseph Smith] taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s offspring.” 

(Historical Department journal history of the Church, 1830-2008; 1890-1899; 1895 August; Church History Library, August 22, 1895, p. 182.)

https://bhroberts.org/records/RTW7tb-0vBtCX/cannon_states_that_joseph_taught_that_the_seed_of_cain_could_not_receive_the_priesthood
 

Joseph F. Smith

Quote

President [Joseph F.] Smith referred to Brother Abel, who was ordained a Seventy by Joseph Young, in the days of the Prophet Joseph, to whom Brother Young issued a Seventies' certificate; but this ordination was declared null and void by the Prophet himself.

(Meeting Minutes, August 26, 1908, George Albert Smith Family Papers, 5-6, Marriott Special Collections)

https://bhroberts.org/records/RTW7tb-wo6Hab/joseph_fielding_smith_states_that_joseph_declared_ables_ordination_null_and_void

Joseph Fielding Smith

Quote

“The question arises from time to time in regard to the Negro race and the Priesthood …. It is true that the Negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine.” (Imp. Era 27:564)

https://archive.org/details/improvementera2706unse/page/564/mode/2up

Official Statement of the First Presidency in 1949

Quote

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

(Statement of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, August 17, 1949, Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.)

Harold B. Lee

Quote

Some are heralding the fact that there was one of colored blood, Elijah Abel, who was ordained a Seventy in the early days. They go to the Church chronology and find the date of this ordination, and hold that up as saying that we departed from what was started way back, but they forget that also in Church history is another interesting observation. President Joseph F. Smith is quoted in a statement under date of August 26, 1908, when he referred to Elijah Abel who was ordained a Seventy in the days of the Prophet and to whom was issued a Seventy’s certificate. This ordination, when found out, was declared null and void by the Prophet himself and so likewise by the next three presidents who succeeded the Prophet Joseph. Somehow because of a little lapse, or a little failure to do research properly, some people reach a conclusion that they had wanted to reach and to make it appear as though something had been done way back from which we had departed and which now ought to be set in order. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “That person who rises up to condemn the Church, saying that the Church is out of the way while he himself is righteous, then know surely that the man is on the road to apostasy, and unless he will repent he will apostatize as surely as God lives” 
(Harold B. Lee April 19, 1961, BYU Speeches of the Year, 1961, p.7).

https://askgramps.org/i-find-at-least-two-instances-of-blacks-being-ordained-to/

Official Statement of the First Presidency in 1969

Quote

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood

(Statement of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, December 15, 1969, Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.)

If Joseph Smith didn't teach the priesthood ban, then all of these statements by the highest authorities of the church would be wrong. I will also add here, that statements by prophets and apostles, particularly official statements of the First Presidency, hold more weight than a single line from an essay written by unnamed scholars on the church's website, which doesn't even say that the ban didn't originate with Joseph Smith, anyway (though some people interpret it to mean this). 

[laronius]

42 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Agreed. 

However, prophets and apostles taught that Joseph Smith taught the ban and revoked Elijah Abel's priesthood once he discovered it:

George Q. Cannon

Joseph F. Smith

Joseph Fielding Smith

Official Statement of the First Presidency in 1949

Harold B. Lee

Official Statement of the First Presidency in 1969

If Joseph Smith didn't teach the priesthood ban, then all of these statements by the highest authorities of the church would be wrong. I will also add here, that statements by prophets and apostles, particularly official statements of the First Presidency, hold more weight than a single line from an essay written by unnamed scholars on the church's website, which doesn't even say that the ban didn't originate with Joseph Smith, anyway (though some people interpret it to mean this). 

All of this is essentially based on a single known source, a statement made by an individual many years after the fact. That statement may in deed be 100% factual. But relying alone on it is generally not considered sufficient for establishing historical fact. I'm totally fine with the idea that it started with Joseph Smith. But it lacks sufficient documentation to establish it as fact in my mind. Regardless, the position of the Church seems to have changed over the years. So someone has to be wrong. But it's not an issue upon which anybody's salvation is dependent so it really doesn't matter who.

[Maverick]

9 minutes ago, laronius said:

All of this is essentially based on a single known source

We don't know what they based these statements on. It's an assumption on your part that these statements are based on a single known source. Zebedee Coltrin is also not the only known source. There's also Abraham O. Smoot and Thomas Shreeve. Your assumption also discounts the Holy Ghost having confirmed this to the prophets and apostles. 

11 minutes ago, laronius said:

the position of the Church seems to have changed over the years

Has it, though? Has the church ever come out and actually declared that the ban didn't begin with Joseph Smith and was started with Brigham Young instead? It seems the church did intentionally leave this ambiguous in the 2013 essay, so members who are disturbed by the ban can choose to believe this if that will help them maintain their testimony in the restoration. 

[laronius]

46 minutes ago, Maverick said:

We don't know what they based these statements on. It's an assumption on your part that these statements are based on a single known source. Zebedee Coltrin is also not the only known source. There's also Abraham O. Smoot and Thomas Shreeve. Your assumption also discounts the Holy Ghost having confirmed this to the prophets and apostles. 

Has it, though? Has the church ever come out and actually declared that the ban didn't begin with Joseph Smith and was started with Brigham Young instead? It seems the church did intentionally leave this ambiguous in the 2013 essay, so members who are disturbed by the ban can choose to believe this if that will help them maintain their testimony in the restoration. 

When I said known source I was referring to what is known to us (though you are correct about the Abraham Smoot source, not familiar with Thomas Shreeve). Obviously they may have had additional information we are not presently aware of.

[Maverick]

27 minutes ago, laronius said:

When I said known source I was referring to what is known to us (though you are correct about the Abraham Smoot source, not familiar with Thomas Shreeve). Obviously they may have had additional information we are not presently aware of.

Yes, they may very well have had access to information that we do not presently have or received this knowledge by the Holy Ghost. It's also clear that the brethren understood the contemporaneously recorded teachings of Joseph Smith, that I have been referencing, as him having taught the priesthood ban. 

I provided the testimony of Thomas Shreeve (as relayed by his three living children) in a recent post in this thread.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Maverick

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Maverick said:

If you want to reduce the official doctrine that was taught by the prophets and apostles for well over a century to this, be my guest. The church's Race and the Priesthood essay does not do this, though. That would be all you. 

We both know that the covenant path, as taught today in the church, does include believing what the current prophet and apostles teach. So at the very least, believing what the prophets and apostles taught about the priesthood ban would have been part of the covenant path for members of the church during the 130+ years that it was taught as the official doctrine. 

The covenant path is Baptism, Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, Priesthood ordinations, Receiving the temple endowment, and Being sealed in marriage. I would say that this path entails keeping the commandments, including following and heeding the prophet, one of many aspects of discipleship no matter the dispensation or administration under which we have the privilege to live. It has nothing to do with poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology as I described above. It requires only a willing heart to observe the path. It has nothing to do with Church essays, either, as much as they reflect good scholarship, good logic and sound theology. Many people keep the path without reading them, though they can support one's efforts to stay on the covenant path.

Edited December 19, 2024 by CV75

[JohnsonJones]

On 12/17/2024 at 9:15 PM, Maverick said:

This is a reasonable conclusion, if we only accept the available evidence that was recorded while Joseph Smith was alive, and nothing afterwards. Taking just the evidence that was recorded during his lifetime, it's possible that he laid the doctrinal foundation for the ban, but just didn't feel the need to ask and receive the direct revelation that blacks were not to hold the priesthood. Considering that the only man of African decent that we know he was aware of who held the priesthood was the 1/8 Elijah Abel, who was of a light complexion, he may not have felt the need to pray and ask God about it. 

However, this theory is not sustainable in light of the evidence from credible sources, such as Zebedee Coltrin, who testified that Joseph Smith did teach the ban and revoked Elijah Abel's priesthood. It's only when we dismiss this evidence that your suggestion is possible. And even, then we simply wouldn't know one way or the other for sure. 

As an aside, it appears that you do care about this topic, at least a teeny tiny bit, after all.  

 

So, many years after the Death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young was on trial in regards to one of his plural wives and a messy divorce.  In it, he was trying to prove that polygamy was something practiced by Joseph Smith and that it was a matter of actual husband and wife practices that were done together (rather than just a ceremonial thing).

This testimony was used by anti-Mormons for years to show that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, while the church itself was mostly silent on the matter.  Today, these testimonies are used to show that Joseph Smith was also a polygamist by the Church itself.

The problem...these testimonies are not historically reliable.  It was shown that some of these woman that testified that they lived with Joseph as husband and wife would do...could Not have possibly done so due to various factors (such as not being in the same nation at the time, or not being anywhere close to where Joseph was, or not even being members...etc).  It throws doubt upon the entire matter of whether they should even be considered relevant or just a matter of fiction utilized in court as a way to try to bolster a legal argument at the time, but which had no basis in history or even reality.

Part of this and why it was possible was that these witnesses of these events were talking about things 30 years in the past.  Memory is a funny thing, and even those that were trying to be truthful may have had their ideas and opinions colored by time and life. 

Ironically, in the past, with Church historians, unless one was a primary source (they were actually there and participated in the event, and it can be shown or proven they were there), testimonies and witnesses of things that were stated 30-40 years after something happened (but had never been mentioned by the individual prior to that point, being of so little importance they never even thought to mention it) were considered unreliable witnesses.  Anti-mormons used these all the time, but as many of these people could be shown to never have even participated or been around the events they testified of, it was all considered  unreliable.

Now days, for some reason, the church accepts all these types of witnesses and testimonies.

Some of the more notorious items of these (for example, Joseph's handling of plates and such, his way of translation...etc) were not even from  primary witnesses, but from a man who claimed they told him these things who then relayed it to a reporter in a Newspaper almost 50 or more years After the events even transpired (second hand source, decades afterwards, from a man who didn't appear to have a solid connection to any of those he said told him these things...that's definitely not a really reliable source for a historian)

I'm not saying this happened in this instance, but as the event you are talking about happened decades after it occurred, it appears to follow a similar trend of other statements and testimonies of things Brigham Young had others certify that Joseph did or approved.

I will (as I said above) say that the things you are saying were also taught to me when I was joining the church, so it was considered doctrine, but as a historian I would also say that the source you are using in Coltrin may not be the most solid evidence. 

[LDSGator]

31 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

will (as I said above) say that the things you are saying were also taught to me when I was joining the church

 None were taught to me in 2014 when I joined, but after we joined the RS society did have a talk on polygamy though 

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

So, many years after the Death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young was on trial in regards to one of his plural wives and a messy divorce.  In it, he was trying to prove that polygamy was something practiced by Joseph Smith and that it was a matter of actual husband and wife practices that were done together (rather than just a ceremonial thing).

This testimony was used by anti-Mormons for years to show that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, while the church itself was mostly silent on the matter.  Today, these testimonies are used to show that Joseph Smith was also a polygamist by the Church itself.

I'm very well versed in the history of plural marriage in the church and I've never heard of this. I think you may be conflating this with the Temple Lot Case, which had nothing to do with a divorce, but was rather a dispute between the RLDS and Hedrickites about who was the rightful owner of the Temple Lot in Missouri.

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

The problem...these testimonies are not historically reliable.

I disagree. If we're talking about the Temple Lot case, the women in question swore under oath that what they said was true and there's substantial other evidence showing that they were Joseph Smith's wives. It's also not the only evidence that Joseph Smith hard marital relations with at least some of his wives.

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

It was shown that some of these woman that testified that they lived with Joseph as husband and wife would do...could Not have possibly done so due to various factors (such as not being in the same nation at the time, or not being anywhere close to where Joseph was, or not even being members...etc).

Do you have a source for this? I've never heard of this. My understanding is that there testimonies are credible and that they were all members of the church who lived in Nauvoo at the time and personally knew Joseph Smith. I believe at least two of them were known to have been living in the prophets home at the time and their testimonies are corroborated by other sources. 

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

for some reason, the church accepts all these types of witnesses and testimonies.

As they should in my opinion. It's still eye witness testimony and considered primary source evidence, even if it is from years later. 

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

as a historian I would also say that the source you are using in Coltrin may not be the most solid evidence. 

Later testimony is not as reliable as contemporaneously recorded evidence, but it's nevertheless solid evidence from a credible source. His testimony is also corroborated with other evidence, which strengthens its reliability. 
 

Edited December 19, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would say that this path entails keeping the commandments, including following and heeding the prophet, one of many aspects of discipleship no matter the dispensation or administration under which we have the privilege to live.

We both know that the long established doctrine of the church is that the president of the church is a true prophet, who speaks for God, as are the apostles. And it's the long established position of the church that when they teach doctrine, especially in an official capacity and for many years, that what is taught is true and from God. 

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

It has nothing to do with poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology

Again, you are welcome to write off the official doctrine of the church as taught by the highest authorities of the church for 130+ years as the word and will of God, as nothing more than "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology" if you want to. But this is all on you and your words are completely hollow as long as you refuse to back them up with any kind of evidence and reasoning.

And we both know that if this was taught as official doctrine today, the expectation would be that the membership believe and follow this as the word of God, just as it was during the 130+ years that it was taught as official doctrine.  

 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Maverick said:

We both know that the long established doctrine of the church is that the president of the church is a true prophet, who speaks for God, as are the apostles. And it's the long established position of the church that when they teach doctrine, especially in an official capacity and for many years, that what is taught is true and from God. 

Again, you are welcome to write off the official doctrine of the church as taught by the highest authorities of the church for 130+ years as the word and will of God, as nothing more than "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology" if you want to. But this is all on you and your words are completely hollow as long as you refuse to back them up with any kind of evidence and reasoning.

And we both know that if this was taught as official doctrine today, the expectation would be that the membership believe and follow this as the word of God, just as it was during the 130+ years that it was taught as official doctrine.  

 

Straw man logical fallacy.

[Maverick]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Straw man logical fallacy.

Your projecting again. And this again rings completely hollow unless you back it up with evidence and reasoning. 

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Your projecting again. And this again rings completely hollow unless you back it up with evidence and reasoning. 

Not at all, and you are committing a strawman logical fallacy. I am writing off your efforts in modern discourse as  "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology" as evidenced throughout this thread. 

[Maverick]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not at all, and you are committing a strawman logical fallacy. I am writing off your efforts in modern discourse as  "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology" as evidenced throughout this thread. 

I'm not making a strawman logically fallacy. From the very beginning you have being saying that what was taught as doctrine by the highest authorities of the church regarding the priesthood ban and the reasons for it was the result of faulty scholarship. And when I asked you specifically about whether the covenant path includes believing the teachings of the prophets, you said that it didn't include "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology." Obviously you've dismissed my explanations, which echo what they taught, as "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology" as well. 

And as I have said several times now, you can keep saying this over and over again like a worn out record, but your words ring completely hollow, when you refuse to back them up with any kind of evidence or reasoning. You haven't even made any attempt to address the direct evidence you kept demanding, which has now been provided. Until you back up your claims, they don't mean anything. 

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I'm not making a strawman logically fallacy. From the very beginning you have being saying that what was taught as doctrine by the highest authorities of the church regarding the priesthood ban and the reasons for it was the result of faulty scholarship. And when I asked you specifically about whether the covenant path includes believing the teachings of the prophets, you said that it didn't include "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology." Obviously you've dismissed my explanations, which echo what they taught, as "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology" as well. 

And as I have said several times now, you can keep saying this over and over again like a worn out record, but your words ring completely hollow, when you refuse to back them up with any kind of evidence or reasoning. You haven't even made any attempt to address the direct evidence you kept demanding, which has now been provided. Until you back up your claims, they don't mean anything. 

You are still projecting  ...!

It does seem you wish to bicker, and I haven't anything to bicker about.

[NeuroTypical]

*sigh*

We might start handing out bans instead of just closing threads.

 

Site rules 3 and 4: 

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Realize that sometimes it is very difficult to be able to express how one feels through written words. Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post.

 

Edited December 19, 2024 by NeuroTypical