tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post1820617856436474656..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Truer Than Ever: The Book of AbrahamJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger148125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8385704547251185302014-07-28T03:21:34.947-05:002014-07-28T03:21:34.947-05:00nice piece of information, I had come to know abou...nice piece of information, I had come to know about your internet site from my friend vinay, delhi,i have read atleast 12 posts of yours by now, and let me tell you, your website gives the best and the most interesting information. This is just the kind of information that i had been looking for, i'm already your rss reader now and i would regularly watch out for the new post, once again hats off to you! Thanx a ton once again, Regards, <a href="http://gyanbharath.blogspot.com/2014/05/sbi-po-2014-sbi-po-result-2014.html" rel="nofollow">sbi po result 2014</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16703167985431758404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-68588847928424897622014-03-03T01:07:39.543-06:002014-03-03T01:07:39.543-06:00> Anti-Mormon links are frowned upon.
Wow, if ...> Anti-Mormon links are frowned upon.<br /><br />Wow, if you're afraid of reviewing sources that are outside of/skeptical of your religion, it says something about your intellectual honesty.<br /><br />Anyways, the fact that it's in the canonical BoM means that if it really isn't the correct papyri, then Smith wasn't wrong, but every prophet after him wasn't really led by God. Unless you're FLDS that really should be worrying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16730699679755209772012-12-08T11:11:09.038-06:002012-12-08T11:11:09.038-06:00Anonymous –
FYI anonymous, Mormanity describes ch...Anonymous –<br /><br />FYI anonymous, Mormanity describes challenges to apologist reasoning as hostility and wishes not to promote links of such hostility (I think it has something to do with website rankings). Following the example of people like Jesus and Socrates, I fear no such promotion of dialogue whether it is deemed by some as hostile or not.<br /><br />http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml<br /><br />To save you a long read, I would summarize the above link: Apologist suggest that the academics are wrong about the facsimiles and Joseph Smith was right. I am not sure why apologist do not say the same about the Book of Breathings.<br /><br />http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml#attached<br /><br />This one kind of does a shoulder shrug with regards to why the facsimile is attached to the Book of Breathings, but suggests the Book of Breathings must have just been an appendix reference to the Book of Abraham.<br /><br />The links above further argue that the descriptions of the purchase were vast, hence the Book of Breathings must have been just one many things not translated or describe in detail.<br /><br />You do not think God would go to such great lengths to make things appear as they are not? After all, even the Biblical God did go to great lengths to make it appear that Abraham was required to murder his own child.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37036779914636627782012-11-30T13:28:09.531-06:002012-11-30T13:28:09.531-06:00It seems that the explanation here is that the Boo...It seems that the explanation here is that the Book of Abraham was translated from other missing Egyptian manuscripts, which were likely destroyed in the Chicago fire. I still haven't seen any explanation of why Joseph Smith failed to translate the Book of Breathings, since the manuscript obviously was in his possession. At the very least, Joseph could have mentioned that he was not supposed to translate that portion of the manuscript. After all, he did explain that quite clearly with the sealed portion of the Gold Plates.<br />Also, Joseph Smith's interpretation of the meaning of the facsimiles, which is provided right next to the copy of the facsimile, doesn't match the interpretation of the same facsimile copy by modern Egyptologists. I still haven't seen that fact explained by apologists, either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29876427748251827672012-02-07T22:00:56.814-06:002012-02-07T22:00:56.814-06:00There's a highly acclaimed Chicago University ...There's a highly acclaimed Chicago University Professor/scholar of Egyptology who released a book about the BoA. His name's Robert Ritner, and he did a full book over Joseph Smith's papyri (The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition). Said "except for those willfully blind, the case is closed." (<a href="http://signaturebooks.com/2012/02/scholar-says-mormon-scripture-not-an-egyptian-translation/" rel="nofollow">http://signaturebooks.com/2012/02/scholar-says-mormon-scripture-not-an-egyptian-translation/</a><br /><br />If I could shell out $80 and had the time, his book (which just came out January 22nd of this year) would be a really interesting read.<br /><br />Honestly, it's about time a highly credible scholar on Egyptology addressed this more fully. He even provides the various interpretations to the Egyptian writings on top of his own original ones! <br /><br />And really, check out that first link when you Google his name. Ridiculously involved in Egyptology (as, well, an Egyptian scholar probably should be. but seriously, he has over 100 publications on Egyptian religion alone)Openmindedhttp://omsthought.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88535357391671387522012-01-20T18:55:54.178-06:002012-01-20T18:55:54.178-06:00Jeff,
This is EXACTLY what I have been dealing wi...Jeff,<br /><br />This is EXACTLY what I have been dealing with the last two days. Just last night I went to the Lord in prayer and allowed myself to gain faith when away from the bad influences...but I did not receive an answer, or any confirmations. I think you have become the Lord's channel to me! :)Jennifer Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178321882787501859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36173547126992792112011-12-09T21:01:42.988-06:002011-12-09T21:01:42.988-06:00"Whether the doctrine was official or unoffic..."Whether the doctrine was official or unofficial, Brigham Young himself stated why he didn't think that Blacks should have the priesthood, and he instituted the priesthood ban."<br /><br />I thought we were talng about how true his words were. Yes they naturally show his motivation according to his knowledge but I still disagree with it.<br /><br />"By the way, was there ever a sustaining vote for the priesthood ban?"<br /><br />Good question. I don't know of any but there's always a sustaining vote as to Brigham young andall succeeding presidents of the LDS Church to being prophet, seers, and revelators. This holds true despite being in err at times. But I know you'd agree to that. <br /><br />"If not, then does that make it an "unofficial" policy? If the ban itself was unofficial, why do we need to find an "official" reason for it? An "unofficial" one should do just fine."<br /><br />If this did not recieve a sustaining vote and furthermore I do believbe this wasa church policy, not a canonized part of doctrines. I don't think we sustain policy opposed to core doctrines. <br /><br />"We're not searching for a reason for the priesthood ban that we agree with; we're just searching for the reason that Brigham Young enacted it."<br /><br />It's easy to confuse me. As for the reason Young instituted the priesthooc ban, yes, hs words would sufficce. but, as I said before, I think he was wrong. <br /><br />"The "Church" as an abstract entity wouldn't be held accountable for anything."<br /><br />When one says, "Mormons believe..." and then fuill it in with something like, "that families can be together forever." This is holding the LDS Church accountable and in this case the presentation is correct. But when someone says, "Mormons believe that you can marry more than one wife," that too is holding the LDS Church accountable to a determined end and in this case, it is an incorrect presentation. In both cases, we look to official doctrines to acertain the accuracy of the presentation. Of course it is individuals that are held accountable ultimately but what do *you* believe "as a Mormon" is determined in significant part to what is official Church doctrine.<br /><br />"They condemn the reasons given for the ban without condemning what followed from those reasons. I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. They can't admit that Brigham Young just made a mistake by instituting the ban in the first place."<br /><br />OK. So, when did God say it was a mistake? <br /><br />"Once you realize that the ban itself was a mistake, it's no great leap to conclude that Brigham's beliefs about the curse of Cain were the motivation for the ban."<br /><br />Why? I don't say issuing the priesthood ban was a mistake yet I agree tha it was Brigham young's view that it was due to the curse of Cain. Now, would this mean that "Mormons believe" that the priesthood was prohibited to blacks because of the curse of cain? Would it be accurate to say that the Mormon Church "taught" that it was the curse of Cain?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-44730304773777026822011-12-09T17:34:43.096-06:002011-12-09T17:34:43.096-06:00Darren,
"Not regarding un-official LDS doctr...Darren,<br /><br />"Not regarding un-official LDS doctrine."<br /><br />Special pleading. Whether the doctrine was official or unofficial, Brigham Young himself stated why he didn't think that Blacks should have the priesthood, and he instituted the priesthood ban. Absent any other evidence, this is evidence for his motivation. By the way, was there ever a sustaining vote for the priesthood ban? If not, then does that make it an "unofficial" policy? If the ban itself was unofficial, why do we need to find an "official" reason for it? An "unofficial" one should do just fine. <br /><br />"Question: before LDS leaders explicitly denounced Adam-God theory as false, anyone who previously rejected that doctrine ("teaching") did they have to present evidence to counterdict Young's teaching that Adam was Heavenly Father other than the fact that such a teaching didn't seem right?"<br /><br />You're confused. We're not searching for a reason for the priesthood ban that we agree with; we're just searching for the reason that Brigham Young enacted it. If Brigham Young had enacted some policy which appeared to be motivated by the Adam-God theory, anyone who claims that the policy was in reality motivated by something else should supply evidence for that claim. Now do you understand? <br /><br />"Anything that is "taught" is doctrine. the question is if it's official doctrine because then and *only* then is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints justifiably held accoutable for it before God and man."<br /><br />This is wrong on so many levels. The "Church" as an abstract entity wouldn't be held accountable for anything. People are held accountable. If by "church" you mean the people in the church, they would not be excused for teaching false doctrine that causes others to err just because they did it without a sustaining vote. Give me a break. You're making up your own unofficial doctrine here. <br /><br />"And "speculating" by its nature is unofficial doctrine."<br /><br />Again, your category, not Brigham Young's. <br /><br />Regarding Elder Oaks' (and Jensen's and Holland's) statements on Papa D's link, what's conspicuously absent from their comments is any repudiation of the priesthood ban itself. They condemn the reasons given for the ban without condemning what followed from those reasons. I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. Most any justification of a racist policy will itself be racist. They can't admit that Brigham Young just made a mistake by instituting the ban in the first place. Once you realize that the ban itself was a mistake, it's no great leap to conclude that Brigham's beliefs about the curse of Cain were the motivation for the ban. The only reason to dismiss that as his motivation is the faith-based desire for there to have been a "good" reason for the ban. There can't be a good reason for a bad policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23468854781979770982011-12-09T15:04:53.654-06:002011-12-09T15:04:53.654-06:00Anonymous;
Here's dallin H. Oaks from PapaD&...Anonymous;<br /><br />Here's dallin H. Oaks from PapaD's link:<br /><br />"<b>And I didn’t understand why; I couldn’t identify with any of the explanations that were given.</b> Yet I sustained the action; I was confident that in the time of the Lord I would know more about it, so I went along on faith. "<br /><br />Sounds like he didn't agree with Brigham Young either.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67916467189789565192011-12-09T13:52:42.741-06:002011-12-09T13:52:42.741-06:00And "speculating" by its nature is unoff...And "speculating" by its nature is unofficial doctrine.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80177107631316345292011-12-09T13:51:52.550-06:002011-12-09T13:51:52.550-06:00Anonymous;
"The distinction in the early chu...Anonymous;<br /><br />"The distinction in the early church was between doctrine and nondoctrine, not between official and unofficial doctrine."<br /><br />Anything that is "taught" is doctrine. the question is if it's official doctrine because then and *only* then is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints justifiably held accoutable for it before God and man.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65747198591655715822011-12-09T13:50:11.655-06:002011-12-09T13:50:11.655-06:00"The burden of proof is on the person who cla..."The burden of proof is on the person who claims that there is some other reason."<br /><br />Not regarding un-official LDS doctrine. Saying, "I don't think that's correct" is fine and leaves nothing inaccuratly characterized.<br /><br />"Absent any evidence for that claim, the default position is to take Brigham Young's explanation for his own actions as authentic."<br /><br />If you want to accept Brigham Young's explanation for whatever reason, fine. I don't fully. There's no reason why I should. There's a spitirual void in his words and I've learned in life to pay attention to that. I don't have to get worked up over it, nor necessarily burden myself with that, but it is there. <br /><br />I will say this though, Brigham Young knew far more about the nature of God and the eternities during his mortal life then I ever have so far in mine. So if tfor that reason alone you fully accept his statment, then so be it. It doesn't bother me in the least tat you would. <br /><br />Question: before LDS leaders explicitly denounced Adam-God theory as false, anyone who previously rejected that doctrine ("teaching") did they have to present evidence to counterdict Young's teaching that Adam was Heavenly Father other than the fact that such a teaching didn't seem right?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-56337361128350154912011-12-09T13:41:32.897-06:002011-12-09T13:41:32.897-06:00Lamdaddy;
I never used "x.co" but it is...Lamdaddy;<br /><br />I never used "x.co" but it is really efficient for those that do.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40612919837299963432011-12-09T13:40:57.079-06:002011-12-09T13:40:57.079-06:00PapaD;
With all do respect, how can I not mention...PapaD;<br /><br />With all do respect, how can I not mention the possibility of pre-mortal reasons for blacks not having the priesthood after you pretty much said it was all racism? I'm offering it as an idea and I've no desire to explore the idea. I've said that man has never known why blacks could not have the priesthood and that settles well with me. If in the future I'm aksed or challenged about it (and i'm sure I will as I blog regularly) I'll say as much again and not delve into details precisely because man does not know. I do not think "perpetuating" means, "never mentioning" lest the LDS Church's position is to "shut your mouths" about the issue. And such is NOT what they are asking to be done.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86424047883422456642011-12-09T10:03:48.752-06:002011-12-09T10:03:48.752-06:00Darren,
" 'Brigham Young's clear exp...Darren,<br /><br />" 'Brigham Young's clear explanation for the ban that he instituted isn't the real reason.'<br /><br />Why should it be?"<br /><br />Why shouldn't it be? The burden of proof is on the person who claims that there is some other reason. Absent any evidence for that claim, the default position is to take Brigham Young's explanation for his own actions as authentic. <br /><br />The distinction in the early church was between doctrine and nondoctrine, not between official and unofficial doctrine. There was a tradition of speculation among early church leaders. It was recognized as speculation, not "unofficial" doctrine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34686882860675451582011-12-09T09:41:25.119-06:002011-12-09T09:41:25.119-06:00Papa,
I like to use x.co to shorten URL's. R...Papa,<br /><br />I like to use x.co to shorten URL's. Really quick.Lamdaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550528525997628134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79824323964173333892011-12-09T09:35:08.017-06:002011-12-09T09:35:08.017-06:00The end of the url is: "repudiating-racist-ju...The end of the url is: "repudiating-racist-justifications-once.html" - just in case it isn't clear.Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-89827416202151688992011-12-09T09:29:48.669-06:002011-12-09T09:29:48.669-06:00"I think something *may* have happened in the..."I think something *may* have happened in the pre-mortal exitence" <br /><br />Darren, what I'm saying is that our current leaders have said for at least three decades now that we should NOT perpetuate the previous justifications - and the quote above does exactly that, your use of the word "may" notwithstanding. In fact, the idea of something from the pre-existence contributing is one of the things that multiple apostles have addressed directly and unequivocally as what we need to stop perpetuating. <br /><br />Please read one of the posts for which I gave the url earlier. I'll copy it again here. It's an abvreviated compilation of quotes regarding the justifications for the ban - not primarily my own words. The very first quote by Elder Jensen mentions the pre-existence speculation, and the others talk directly about perpetuating the mistaken ideas of the past: <br /><br />http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/04/repudiating-racist-justifications-once.htmlPapa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1276256177085207832011-12-09T09:10:37.659-06:002011-12-09T09:10:37.659-06:00"So according to you, the priesthood ban was ..."So according to you, the priesthood ban was the right thing for the wrong reason."<br /><br />A possibility only. I think something *may* have happened in the pre-mortal exitence but man has not ever known what exactly happend if in deed it wasa pre-mortal event, or events, that ocurred which resulted in groups of people not having the priesthood. So, in declaring what may have happened, one would only be speculating. By speculating, one is open to erroniously interpreting what may have happened. So, yes, in it was because of pre-mortal events than humans could very much have erred in declaring exactly what those events were. <br /><br />"Brigham Young's clear explanation for the ban that he instituted isn't the real reason."<br /><br />Why should it be?<br /><br />"Having a procedure for canonization does not mean that early church leaders distinguished between doctrine and official doctrine."<br /><br />Yes, it does, or why else have the procedure? <br /><br />"Show me one example where an early church leader verbally makes the distinction."<br /><br />First off, I did not say that early church leaders made verbasl distinctions betwen official and non official doctrines. I said that the mere fact that a procedure exists to establish official doctrine naturally shows a distinction. Otherwise, why have the process? From the great omniscient oracle, Wikipedia: <br /><br /><i>During the life of Brigham Young, elements of the Adam–God doctrine were taught in LDS church meetings, sung in church hymns, and featured as part of the church's Endowment ceremony. However, the doctrine was startling to Mormons when it was introduced, and it remained controversial. Several other Mormon leaders, the most vocal being Orson Pratt, rejected the doctrine in favor of other theological ideas. Soon after Young's death in 1877, the Adam–God doctrine fell out of favor within mainstream Mormonism, and was replaced by a theology more similar to that of Orson Pratt, as codified by turn-of-the century Mormon theologians James E. Talmage, B. H. Roberts and John A. Widtsoe.</i><br /><br />While this does not say, "this is not official doctrine of the Church," I ask, when was the Adam-God theory ever fully implemented into church teachings? What about people living on the Sun? These, at least to some extent, were taught by Brigham Young so why not fully taught in Sunday School by leaders of the Church? That's because by Brigham Young's day there was already ample official doctrines to teach from. The Book of Mormon, the Bible, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine of Covenants. All these doctrines were voted on and sustained by leaders and the general membership of the Church. If there were no distinction than why not teach everything equally in the Church? They weren't because there was a distinction between what was sustained and what was not. Even speeches in General Conference, though highly reliable, are not official doctrine. Only declarations which passed through a sustaining vote, which may ocurre in General Conference, are official doctrine. The mere fact that this process exists means there's a distinction between official and nonofficla doctrines in the LDS Church.<br /><br />Now, you are correct in that there was not an explicit and affirmative distinction made between sermons and official doctrine that I'm aware of but there were disagreements all the time among church leaders regarding what is true and what is not. Not everybody accepted as truth everything spoken by church leaders. But it was pretty unaminous as to the veracity of the Standard Works, howbeit individual interpretations may varied and still vary. Why the difference, do you think?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65496648677612306252011-12-09T07:39:12.520-06:002011-12-09T07:39:12.520-06:00@ Darren
"They were, however, according to e...@ Darren<br /><br />"They were, however, according to evidence available to us today, wrong about applying reasons of justification for denying the priesthood to blacks."<br /><br />"Personally, I think the idea that something happened in the pre-mortal existence for blacks in our time in the New World as well as for people in ancient times in the Old World which justified them not having the priesthood."<br /><br />So according to you, the priesthood ban was the right thing for the wrong reason. Brigham Young's clear explanation for the ban that he instituted isn't the real reason. This is the legacy of the church not explaining the ban to its members post 1978. <br /><br />"Yes, they did. that's why they had a procedure to cestablish official doctrine and Journal of Discourse never made it through that procedure. "<br /><br />Having a procedure for canonization does not mean that early church leaders distinguished between doctrine and official doctrine. Show me one example where an early church leader verbally makes the distinction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15783501578814236312011-12-08T20:05:44.664-06:002011-12-08T20:05:44.664-06:00PapaD;
When I set links correctly I set another b...PapaD;<br /><br />When I set links correctly I set another blogsite with a link button which is compatible to this website's software and then copy and paste it here. Someday I'll get smart and copy and paste the formulation on Word or something so that I do not need to go to that site all the time. <br /><br />"Something that might not be considered doctrine now certainly functioned as doctrine if it was taught enough to be believed by most members."<br /><br />I totally agree with you. My position was to make clear that such doctrines were not official doctrines of the LDS Church. anonymous' summarization made it sound as it *officially* the Book of Abraham was the reason that blacks were denied the priesthood. yes, it was used, and yes, many believed it so but no, it was not an official doctrine of the Church. <br /><br />"The distinction between officially accepted, "by common consent approved" doctrine and unofficial, "accepted by default because it was taught emphatically by most leaders" doctrine is important to me - but we can't hide behind those distinctions when dealing with issues like this."<br /><br />First off, I'm completely with you on setting an importance of distiguishng between official and non-official doctrines of the Church. but I have to ask, who here is hiding behind that distinction? I do not think anyone here denied the racial ramifications of those doctrines.<br /><br />"partly because it was so different than what was taught and practiced by Joseph Smith during his lifetime.'<br /><br />That's exactly how I view it and I find it important to point that out as well. <br /><br />"In this instance, we were wrong - and it's counter-productive and misplaced, imo, to try to reason otehrwise."<br /><br />By any chance, is that what you think I did or tried to do?<br /><br />"They just were badly wrong in this case."<br /><br />As you showed, hindsight is always 20/20. I will not go so far as to say taty "they were badly wrong" in regards to blacks not havingthe priesthood. We simply do not know nearly enough to make that judgement call. They were, however, according to evidence available to us today, wrong about applying reasons of justification for denying the priesthood to blacks.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21913193725051419302011-12-08T19:53:36.536-06:002011-12-08T19:53:36.536-06:00"Early church leaders didn't distinguish ..."Early church leaders didn't distinguish between "doctrine" and "official doctrine.""<br /><br />Yes, they did. that's why they had a procedure to cestablish official doctrine and Journal of Discourse never made it through that procedure. In fact, only a small minute portion of the words of the prophets ever make it through. Therefore, it is nt wrong to doubt their words, nor even believe they are true. <br /><br />Brigham Young did start the priesthood ban and used the very reasons you cited from him to justify it. But the fact of the matter is that we do not know the source of that ban, nor for his knowledge he relied upon to make his justification. All were know is that God never told anyone to lift the ban until President Kimball. <br /><br />My whole point in this dialogue of official doctrine is that it was not *because* of the Book of Abraham that blacks did not receive the preisthood. In fact, I do not think the Book of Abraham and the curse of Ham was used until B.H.Roberts somne 40 years after the ban was set in motion. <br /><br />you're also right about McConkie and growing up I beilieved things as doctrine until I realized that <i>Mormon Doctrine</i> wasn't necessarily Mormon doctrine. His book had great things to say and expain so many points of doctrine quite nicely, nor do I doubt McConkie's eternal blessings for his service to the Lord while in mortality. This was a learning lesson for me to study the words of the LDS leaders, especially the prophets and apostles and to learn from where they come from. In the end you don't have to push any envelope to say McConkie was wrong regarding the blacks not having the priesthood. He pretty much admitted as much himself. In fact, I do believe Brigham Young explicitly denounced the idea tha blacks were neutral in the pre-mortal existence and I think he even denounced the idea that they were somehow less valiant. <br /><br />Personally, I think the idea that something happened in the pre-mortal existence for blacks in our time in the New World as well as for people in ancient times in the Old World which justified them not having the priesthood. But I want to stress that if it was for something of the pre-mortal existence, we do not know wha it is and t is volatile to speculate. I say "volatile" since it is not inherently wrong to speculate but it must be done in a manner where the speculator makes other know it is only his/her ideas. Otherwise people can wind up believing things which are not true. Who knows, maybe blacks did something really good before te Lord to not have the priesthood on earth for a time. <br /> <br />Go figure.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-35826567738605036322011-12-08T18:32:23.310-06:002011-12-08T18:32:23.310-06:00My hat's off to you, Papa D.My hat's off to you, Papa D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53311511959192338512011-12-08T18:01:16.170-06:002011-12-08T18:01:16.170-06:00Anonymous is correct, in all practical terms that ...Anonymous is correct, in all practical terms that matter, on this one. Something that might not be considered doctrine now certainly functioned as doctrine if it was taught enough to be believed by most members. <br /><br />The distinction between officially accepted, "by common consent approved" doctrine and unofficial, "accepted by default because it was taught emphatically by most leaders" doctrine is important to me - but we can't hide behind those distinctions when dealing with issues like this. Our practical doctrine was terribly racist and wrong, imo, during this time period - partly because it was so different than what was taught and practiced by Joseph Smith during his lifetime. <br /><br />We need to admit that openly, even if I don't think we need to apologize for others' inability to accept and practice the ideal that should have been practiced. Saying it was wrong and changing it is enough of an apology, and the leadership has done that - as shown in the quotes in the first post in my second comment. They might not be as forceful as I'd like them to be, but they are clear, nonetheless. <br /><br />In this instance, we were wrong - and it's counter-productive and misplaced, imo, to try to reason otehrwise. <br /><br />I'm not castigating those who believed it in saying this; I have no idea if I would feel the same way I do now if I had lived then. They did the best they could, given their own blind spots - just like we do now. They just were badly wrong in this case.Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31798652038539063662011-12-08T17:48:12.532-06:002011-12-08T17:48:12.532-06:00Darren,
You said, "I was only pointing out w...Darren,<br /><br />You said, "I was only pointing out what was neverofficial Church doctrine: blacks not receiving the priesthood because of the Book of Abraham or because of the makr of Cain or curse of Ham."<br /><br />OK, not official. It doesn't matter. Since it was taught, it was unofficial doctrine. Brigham Young and others used this unofficial doctrine as a reason not to give the priesthood to Blacks. Brigham Young:<br /><br />"Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the Priesthood, and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ." (Wilford Woodruff, Deseret News Press, 1909, p.351)<br /><br />"The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race-that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion." Journal of Discourses 7:282.<br /><br />Brigham Young started the priesthood ban. He gives his reasons in the quotations above. Why not take him at his word? It's not "official" doctrine by your definition, but what difference does that make? Early church leaders didn't distinguish between "doctrine" and "official doctrine." <br /><br />A glimpse of how mainstream Mormons interpreted this unofficial doctrine circa 1958, Bruce McConkie in (Unofficial) Mormon Doctrine:<br /><br />"Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin.... Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood....The negroes are not equal with other races when the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate."<br /><br />Thank goodness none of this was official. How might things have been different if it were official?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com