Official LDS doctrine: Priesthood Ban Divinely Appointed

[_Darth J]

To be fair, Droopy, you're trying to defend the truth claims of the LDS Church.

Would you be willing to continue engaging me if I leveled the playing field by arguing that, say, The Lord of the Rings is a true story?

[_Darth J]

Please come back, Droopy. I really will try to make it a fair debate. I'll even let you pick which position I have to take to balance out your defense of the LDS Church. Check which idea I have to defend:

___Charles Ponzi was a financial genius and his plan to make money with international postal reply coupons totally would have worked if the government had not gotten involved.

___Darth Vader was a real person.

___Ronald Reagan was a space alien disguised as an Earthling (may have constitutional implications as well, since as a non-native of the United States he was not eligible to be president).

___The Loch Ness Monster killed JFK.

___Elvis and Tupac are both still alive.

___Water retains the "memory" of other chemicals it has been mixed with.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

[...]

Thanks. I disagree with your view of "long promised day," but no matter. One more question: how do you substantiate your interpretation of "official doctrine" when it wasn't developed until recently, and can't be projected onto the past because official/unofficial venue boundaries were much more blurred in the past?

[_bcspace]

Thanks. I disagree with your view of "long promised day,

It's not the only example of such, but once you answer the question of who would have long promised such a day (recalling that the phrase comes from scripture, the OD 2), then you must accept the ban as Divinely appointed or reject LDS doctrine and scripture.

One more question: how do you substantiate your interpretation of "official doctrine" when it wasn't developed until recently, and can't be projected onto the past because official/unofficial venue boundaries were much more blurred in the past?

I don't have a particular interpretation of it, I merely go by what the Church has said. But the roots go back to at 1835 (or earlier) and D&C 107 were we see the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority. An example of this in operation would be OD 1 since it had to be brought before the full Qo12 before it was approved.

I have no problem making the distinction between before and after Correlation; context becomes much more important and maybe the lines are blurred just a little. But I think you can remain pretty consistent all the way back. Just as in today's examples of Conference talks edited before publication (another sign that publication is THE standard), there are also examples of earlier publications having sections retracted or clarified.

You, like some others, are also forgetting the common sense principle of simply taking the Church at it's word. That is from the beginning.

[_Buffalo]

It's not the only example of such, but once you answer the question of who would have long promised such a day (recalling that the phrase comes from scripture, the OD 2), then you must accept the ban as Divinely appointed or reject LDS doctrine and scripture.
.

Interestingly, they never specified who promised the day. There is no official doctrine that it was God who promised it. It could have been anyone.

[_bcspace]

Interestingly, they never specified who promised the day. There is no official doctrine that it was God who promised it. It could have been anyone.

There are only two possibilities. God. Or God through His prophets. If it were not so, then God would not have had to have been petitioned. So either way, Divinely appointed.

[_Drifting]

Interestingly, they never specified who promised the day. There is no official doctrine that it was God who promised it. It could have been anyone.

There are only two possibilities. God. Or God through His prophets. If it were not so, then God would not have had to have been petitioned. So either way, Divinely appointed.

Possibility number 3.
Priesthood ban was instigated by a racist Prophet against God's wishes.
Subsequent Prophets lacked the divine inspiration to reverse it.
The Government under pressure from society gives the Church an ultimatum.
The Prophet at the time can find no justifiable or scriptural reason for the ban.
The Prophet reverses the ban because God fails to send him a sign that his decision to reverse it is wrong.

Possibility number 3 is the one that fits all of the available evidence and historical record.

I know you want the Priesthood ban to have been from God (although I don't know why) but it wasn't. Even President Newsroom is hedging his bets...

[_Jason Bourne]

Interestingly, they never specified who promised the day. There is no official doctrine that it was God who promised it. It could have been anyone.

There are only two possibilities. God. Or God through His prophets. If it were not so, then God would not have had to have been petitioned. So either way, Divinely appointed.

There are many other possibilities. Just because it is referred to as the long divinely appointed day does not mean God was involved at all. The person stating this could simply be imagining there was some long promised day. And where can we find reference to the original where this day was promised? If it was long promised we should have that recorded somewhere other than the leaders stating that someday the ban would be lifted. The records regarding all this are glaringly absent. It is pretty clear the LDS leaders, other than perhaps BY, who was very outspoken about this, never really knew where this came from.

[_Buffalo]

Interestingly, they never specified who promised the day. There is no official doctrine that it was God who promised it. It could have been anyone.

There are only two possibilities. God. Or God through His prophets. If it were not so, then God would not have had to have been petitioned. So either way, Divinely appointed.

Yes, two possibilities - it either came from a human or from god. And there's no official doctrine that it was god.

[_bcspace]

There are only two possibilities. God. Or God through His prophets. If it were not so, then God would not have had to have been petitioned. So either way, Divinely appointed.

There are many other possibilities.

No, only those if current LDS scripture is true.