Which direct commandments from the Lord do LDS follow?

[_sock puppet]

Race and the Priesthood essay, now on LDS.org

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.
...
Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.”
...
Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi [26:33]: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

So when the FP back on 8/17/1949 said the priesthood ban was not a mere matter of policy of the LDS church, but "a direct commandment from the Lord", was that just a theory advanced by the FP at that time? When the FP says something is a direct commandment from the Lord, is is really just more manspeak? Didn't the HG confirm to many a LDS that the FP spoke the 'truth' on 8/17/1949 when it hoisted the priesthood ban on the petard of 'direct commandments from the Lord'?

Do the LDS yet list and regard George Albert Smith and David O McKay as "prophets", now dead just as is Adam, Abraham, Noah, Nephi, Moroni, etc? Or have the LDS excised from their listing of this dispensation's prophets George Albert Smith and David O McKay as "false" prophets for having claimed the Lord commanded something the the LDS church now says the Lord did not?

When McConkie was saying that the priesthood ban was due to limited understanding, was the E/J's omniscience that was limited?

If the LDS church should ever make tithing 'optional' and give non-payers temple recommends, will they explain that tithing being mandatory was just the product of E/J's limited understanding and that with new "light and knowledge" that the LDS church knows better now and that it really has been optional all along? (Given that tithing involves money, betting that won't happen except as a very last move to save the club from extinction, and even then, there wouldn't be a refund even to those that might apply explaining they only ever paid it because it was a 'commandment from the Lord'.)

26 footnotes to the Race and the Priesthood essay, but glaringly missing is reference to or any mention of the most direct, clear pronouncement by the FP about the priesthood ban against blacks, the FP statement of 8/17/1949.

So TBMs, what will be your response if your son comes home with an ear pierced? Or your daughter with more than one piercing in an ear?

[_JLHPROF]

This apparently all comes down (for right or for wrong) to whether the "TBM's" are following principles they feel are correct or just doing as they are told. I would think there is a bit of both in such a diverse membership.

[_sock puppet]

This apparently all comes down (for right or for wrong) to whether the "TBM's" are following principles they feel are correct or just doing as they are told. I would think there is a bit of both in such a diverse membership.

Do you feel that the earring prophecy is from god or just the style sensibilities of the FP/12 that should be obeyed?

[_Maksutov]

Pay, Pray and Obey?

[_JLHPROF]

This apparently all comes down (for right or for wrong) to whether the "TBM's" are following principles they feel are correct or just doing as they are told. I would think there is a bit of both in such a diverse membership.

Do you feel that the earring prophecy is from god or just the style sensibilities of the FP/12 that should be obeyed?

Me personally? I think it's right up there with paying 9% tithing or having a couple of glasses of wine.
It deals in principles of respecting your body and honoring your priesthood heads requests.
Depending on how much weight a member gives those principles is whether they should be followed.

I don't think there is any sin in piercings in and of themselves. Just as there is no sin in a glass of wine. But there is a lack of obedience to one's head, and that is a topic all of its own.

[_sock puppet]

This apparently all comes down (for right or for wrong) to whether the "TBM's" are following principles they feel are correct or just doing as they are told. I would think there is a bit of both in such a diverse membership.

Do you feel that the earring prophecy is from god or just the style sensibilities of the FP/12 that should be obeyed?

Me personally? I think it's right up there with paying 9% tithing or having a couple of glasses of wine.
It deals in principles of respecting your body and honoring your priesthood heads requests.
Depending on how much weight a member gives those principles is whether they should be followed.

I don't think there is any sin in piercings in and of themselves. Just as there is no sin in a glass of wine. But there is a lack of obedience to one's head, and that is a topic all of its own.

So, was the black ban from the priesthood a) a direct commandment from the Lord as the FP proclaimed in 1949 or b) sources unknown, perhaps due to societal pressures in the mid 19th Century, as suggested by the current Essay on LDS.org?

[_grindael]

Who sets the criteria for what respect of your body is? Is it respecting your body to go hungry because you have to pay tithing? Or not be able to afford healthcare because you pay tithing? Why is an earring or a tattoo considered NOT respecting your body? What commandment is this breaking and why should we not consider this to simply be a cultural opinion like they tried to portray the Priesthood Ban as?

[_Philo Sofee]

Who sets the criteria for what respect of your body is? Is it respecting your body to go hungry because you have to pay tithing? Or not be able to afford healthcare because you pay tithing? Why is an earring or a tattoo considered NOT respecting your body? What commandment is this breaking and why should we not consider this to simply be a cultural opinion like they tried to portray the Priesthood Ban as?

And who sets what or who it is necessary to be obedient to? There is some vicious circular reasoning going on in LDS thinking,..... I can honestly claim to have splendid obedience to truth based on evidence and obedience to changing my mind as evidence indicates necessary in many areas that others would simply label as wicked or wrong headed.. What a conundrum, eh?

[_grindael]

Here is something interesting,

"It may come as a surprise to some people to learn that modesty in dress and grooming is related to salvation. I left the Missionary Executive Committee meeting this morning to come here, and the last item approved was a *DOCUMENT* to go to mission presidents, stake presidents, and bishops instructing each to counsel all returned missionaries to conform to the dress and grooming standards that had prevailed in their missions." (The Ten Commandments of a Peculiar People, Bruce R. McConkie, Jan. 28, 1975)

[_grindael]

On what criteria are those grooming standards based? The personal preference of those like Bruce R. McConkie? The sheer lunacy of this is mind boggling.