Official LDS doctrine: Priesthood Ban Divinely Appointed

[_Buffalo]

There are many other possibilities.

No, you see, actually, there aren't.

D&C 1:33

Irrelevant.

[_Jason Bourne]

There are many other possibilities.

No, you see, actually, there aren't.

D&C 1:33

Can't resist the personal attacks can you Droopy. Don't pretend you try to be above the fray. It simply makes you look disingenuous and dishonest.

2 Nephi 9:34

Now on to the point. Yes there are other possibilities. Simply stating that the lift of the ban was the long awaited divinely appointed day makes a cut and dry case that the ban was in fact based on revelation is a huge leap. How about you point us to anywhere that it was foretold in official and or revelatory language that there was a long awaited day. Perhaps it will be in the revelation that established the ban. Good luck.

[_Jason Bourne]

There are many other possibilities.

No, you see, actually, there aren't.

D&C 1:33[/quote]

Irrelevant.

It was just Droopy attacking me personally in his snide, snippy and snotty way.

[_Droopy]

D&C 1:33

Can't resist the personal attacks can you Droopy. Don't pretend you try to be above the fray. It simply makes you look disingenuous and dishonest.

All I'm doing here is what my duty as a priesthood holder obliges me to do given the oath and convent of the priesthood. No personal attack at all, although I can see clearly why you would take it as such.

2 Nephi 9:34

Embrace the darkness if you must, Jason, but don't go steady until you're 16.

Now on to the point. Yes there are other possibilities. Simply stating that the lift of the ban was the long awaited divinely appointed day makes a cut and dry case that the ban was in fact based on revelation is a huge leap.

From a standpoint of spiritual death, that is certainly the case. From the position of testimony, revelation, and faith, its not tenable at all.

[_Jason Bourne]

D&C 1:33

Can't resist the personal attacks can you Droopy. Don't pretend you try to be above the fray. It simply makes you look disingenuous and dishonest.

All I'm doing here is what my duty as a priesthood holder obliges me to do given the oath and convent of the priesthood. No personal attack at all, although I can see clearly why you would take it as such.

It is not your job to jab me about my personal status. You have no authority or stewardship over me. That would be my ward and stake leaders and as I have noted my stake leader and I are talking about my status and where I am. And I can tell you, his approach to me is a lot more compelling to me and the desire to change than is your. Go study out D&C 121 especially the verses about unrighteous dominion, kindness, love unfeigned and you know, amen to the authority of someone attempting to exercise unrighteous dominion. You certainly have a history of behavior outside the instruction given in that section at least on this and other boards.

2 Nephi 9:34

Embrace the darkness if you must, Jason, but don't go steady until you're 16.

More snide snarky remarks. Restrain yourself Droopy old boy. And go read D&C 121. You certainly need to apply the principles taught there.

Now on to the point. Yes there are other possibilities. Simply stating that the lift of the ban was the long awaited divinely appointed day makes a cut and dry case that the ban was in fact based on revelation is a huge leap.

From a standpoint of spiritual death, that is certainly the case. From the position of testimony, revelation, and faith, its not tenable at all.

Evidence it what counts. Appealing to your own subjective feelings and spiritual experiences does not make a defense. It may make you secure but it does not convince anyone of your arguments.

Now if you want to debate then grow up and debate. Stop being a self righteous, smug and overly pious prig. It wins you no points and does not encourage me or anyone else you attack to change move back into what you think is the light. It may make you feel like a big person though.

[_Darth J]

All I'm doing here is what my duty as a priesthood holder obliges me to do given the oath and convent of the priesthood.

You're a Mormon nun?

[_Droopy]

It is not your job to jab me about my personal status.

It is my duty as a priesthood bearer to warn you of the consequences of continuing and moving deeper into apostasy (and a little jabbing here and there may be in order, especially given your continual groin kicking at the Brethren, Joseph etc.).

You have no authority or stewardship over me.

I've never claimed any.

That would be my ward and stake leaders and as I have noted my stake leader and I are talking about my status and where I am.

Well, you're debating me and attacking the Church in this forum, not with your ward or stake leaders, so I guess you'll just have to deal with that as it is.

And I can tell you, his approach to me is a lot more compelling to me and the desire to change than is your.

And no doubt you don't speak to him as you speak to me, nor does he have any idea what you say in this forum on a continual basis. Have you shown him the manner in which you attack and impugn Joseph Smith, The church, its contemporary leaders, and its teachings here?

Go study out D&C 121 especially the verses about unrighteous dominion, kindness, love unfeigned and you know, amen to the authority of someone attempting to exercise unrighteous dominion.

I'm not exercising unrighteous dominion. I have no power over you whatsoever. I am defending the Church you despise so and warning you regarding the consequences of attacking the church, speaking ill of the Lord's anointed servants, and bringing railing accusation against those he has chosen to lead his church in this dispensation. That's all I'm doing. If you expect me to absorb and swallow your shoddy argumentation, garbled thinking, and personal slanders of the past and future leaders of this church without critique of your arguments or returning a bit of fire in my own right when you abuse Joseph or the modern Brethren, then I only have this to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtuoFv4dcwM&ob=av3n

You certainly have a history of behavior outside the instruction given in that section at least on this and other boards.

If I dood it, I get a whippin'

I dood it!

Evidence it what counts. Appealing to your own subjective feelings and spiritual experiences does not make a defense. It may make you secure but it does not convince anyone of your arguments.

This could be Ed Decker or Madalyn Murray O' Hair talking. Take your pick of these kindred souls because both of them deny the spirit of prophecy and revelation, and fight against God and his anointed servants in our day.

"Evidence" is for science and philosophy. Pure knowledge distilling like the dews of Heaven is a right and blessing within the gospel, but not for those who reject it and turn away to the "arm of flesh." Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. And eyes to see, and a mind to receive light and truth from its source.

Just keep telling yourself that the Church is full of crap, that the Brethren are deceivers and hypocrites, racists, sexists, and homophobes (I'm sure you can add your own contributions here) and that you know more than they or anyone else who defends the Church.

That's the way to wisdom and intelligence. You've got it, Jason.

[_Brackite]

Dear BCSpace,

Have you ever read the essay titled, "Neither White nor Black," by Lester Bush??
Here is more from that essay, By Lester E. Bush:

Through three decades of discourses, Brigham Young never attributed the policy of priesthood denial to Joseph Smith, nor did he cite the Prophet’s translation of the book of Abraham in support of this doctrine. Neither, of course, had he invoked Joseph Smith on the slavery issue. Nor had any other Church leader cited the Prophet in defense of slavery or priesthood denial. It is perhaps not surprising then that shortly after the departure of President Young’s authoritative voice, questions arose as to what Joseph Smith had taught concerning the Negro.[p.76]

...

Several years later George Q. Cannon repeated the essentials of this explanation (excluding the references to the preexistence) in the Juvenile Instructor,139 and by 1900 Cannon was citing the Pearl of Great Price in First Presidency discussions.140 This explanation appeared again in the Millennial Star in 1903141 and in Liahona, the Elders’ Journal in 1908.142 Additional allusions were also evident in First Presidency and Council discussions,143 and by 1912 this relatively new argument had become a [p.81] foundation of Church policy. Responding to the inquiry, “Is it a fact that a Negro cannot receive the priesthood, and if so, what is the reason?” The First Presidency wrote, “You are referred to the Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham, Chapter 1, verses 26 and 27, going to show that the seed of Ham was cursed as pertaining to the priesthood; and that by reason of this curse they have no right to it.”144

When fully developed the Pearl of Great Price argument went as follows: Cain became black after murdering his brother Abel; among his descendants were a people of Canaan who warred on their neighbors, and were also identified as black.145 Ham, Noah’s son, married Egyptus, a descendant of this Cain-Canaan lineage; Cain’s descendants had been denied the priesthood, and thus Ham’s descendants were also denied the priesthood. This was confirmed in the case of Pharaoh, a descendant of Ham and Egyptus, and of the Canaanites, and who was denied the priesthood; the modern Negro was of this Cain-Ham-lineage, and therefore was not eligible for the priesthood.146

Actually a careful reading of the Pearl of Great Price reveals that the books of Moses and Abraham fall far short of so explicit an account. Negroes, for instance, are never mentioned. Though Cain’s descendants are identified as black at one point before the Flood, they are never again identified. The people of Canaan are not originally black and are thus unlikely candidates for Cain’s “seed.” There is no explicit statement that Ham’s wife was “Egyptus”; rather the account reads that there was a woman “who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus.” In patriarchal accounts this would not necessarily imply a literal daughter, as individuals are not infrequently referred to as sons or daughters of their grandparents or even more remote ancestors. Within Abraham’s own account an “Egyptus” is later referred to as the “daughter of Ham,” and the Pharaoh who has been identified as “Egyptus’ eldest son” is elsewhere seemingly the son of Noah. Moreover, the book of Moses records that Ham was a man of God prior to the Flood, and that the daughters of the sons of Noah were “fair.” The effort to relate Pharaoh to the antediluvian people of Canaan is especially strained, for in characterizing Pharaoh as a descendant of Egyptus and the “Canaanites” there is no suggestion that this latter group was any other than the people of Canaan descended from Ham’s son, Canaan (who also had been cursed).147

How then was the Pearl of Great Price put to such ready use in defense of the policy of priesthood denial to Negroes? Very simply, the basic belief that a lineage could be traced from Cain through the wife of Ham to the modern Negro had long been accepted by the Church, independently of the Pearl of Great Price. It was a very easy matter to read this belief into that scripture, for if one assumes that there was a unique continuous lineage extending from Cain and Ham to the present [p.82] and that this is the lineage of the contemporary Negro, then it must have been accomplished essentially as B. H. Roberts proposed.

Link: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=445



Why didn't Brigham Young ever attributed the Policy of the Priesthood ban to Abraham 1:21-27???

Why wasn't it until the beginning of the 20th Century did the leaders of the LDS Church started really attributing the Policy of the Priesthood ban to Abraham 1:21-27???

[_Jason Bourne]

It is my duty as a priesthood bearer to warn you of the consequences of continuing and moving deeper into apostasy

No not really. Two reasons. One I am fully aware of what the scriptures say about apostasy. In fact I have no doubt I know them as well as you. The next reason is you really are not motivated to correct me and remind me out of pure and righteous motives. Rather your motives are based in a seemingly deep seated need you have score points on a message board. Most of the digs your throw out like this are targeted at person that are still participants in the Church who also may take issue with things that we have discovered demonstrate that the Church is not what it claimed to be. If you were motivated by the love of Christ and other righteous desires the way fulfilled your priesthood duty would be very different.

(and a little jabbing here and there may be in order, especially given your continual groin kicking at the Brethren, Joseph etc.).

[/quote]

If you can demonstrate where I have protested about things from LDS leaders and Joseph Smith are not true then perhaps a jab is in order. So far you have not succeeded in this.

You have no authority or stewardship over me.

I've never claimed any.

Your approach is to exercise unrighteous dominion. Read D&C 121. Practice it.

That would be my ward and stake leaders and as I have noted my stake leader and I are talking about my status and where I am.

Well, you're debating me and attacking the Church in this forum, not with your ward or stake leaders, so I guess you'll just have to deal with that as it is.

I am happy to debate you. I just tire of your mean snarky remarks. Especially when I push back then you whine you don't want to get personal when you are the one who starts getting personal.

And I can tell you, his approach to me is a lot more compelling to me and the desire to change than is your.

And no doubt you don't speak to him as you speak to me, nor does he have any idea what you say in this forum on a continual basis.

And you no doubt would be wrong.

Have you shown him the manner in which you attack and impugn Joseph Smith, The church, its contemporary leaders, and its teachings here?

I feel no need to give a detail of what I discuss with my leaders to you. But I will say that topics touched upon include polygamy, polyandry, Joseph Smith marrying teens and the compulsion he used to convince women to marry him, his treatment of Emma in this process, First Vision questions, BYs off the wall teachings about Adam God and blood atonement, everything we have discussed here about the priesthood ban, how the Church presents a history that focuses only on the postive, the bland curriculum that has come from correlation, why we are losing young people. So yea Droopy I have discussed a lot with my leaders.

Go study out D&C 121 especially the verses about unrighteous dominion, kindness, love unfeigned and you know, amen to the authority of someone attempting to exercise unrighteous dominion.

I'm not exercising unrighteous dominion.

You are attempting too.

I have no power over you whatsoever.

Obviously.

I am defending the Church you despise so and warning you regarding the consequences of attacking the church, speaking ill of the Lord's anointed servants, and bringing railing accusation against those he has chosen to lead his church in this dispensation. That's all I'm doing.

Defend away. But if your defense consists of telling me how darkened my mind now is and how right you are because of the light God shines upon you don't expect me or anyone else to be convinced. And honestly that seems to be most of what you say in your defenses at least with me.

If you expect me to absorb and swallow your shoddy argumentation, garbled thinking,

This is rich coming from someone whose defenses often consist of denial, personal attacks, self appointed comments of personal condemnation and paragraph length sentences with excessive words that result in over the top hyperbole and meaningless commentary.

and personal slanders of the past and future leaders of this church without critique of your arguments or returning a bit of fire in my own right when you abuse Joseph or the modern Brethren, then I only have this to say:

]

Defend with evidence if you can.

Evidence it what counts. Appealing to your own subjective feelings and spiritual experiences does not make a defense. It may make you secure but it does not convince anyone of your arguments.

This could be Ed Decker or Madalyn Murray O' Hair talking. Take your pick of these kindred souls because both of them deny the spirit of prophecy and revelation, and fight against God and his anointed servants in our day.

Oh brother. In other words you have no evidence so you plead testimony special knowledge from God.

Just keep telling yourself that the Church is full of crap,

I do not think everything in the Church is crap. But once you take off the glasses you can see in many cased the emperor really has no clothes on many instances. The topic of this thread is one of them.

that the Brethren are deceivers and hypocrites, racists, sexists, and homophobes (I'm sure you can add your own contributions here) and that you know more than they or anyone else who defends the Church.

More over the top hyperbole. The truth is my complaints are limited and narrow. Anyone who is honest in dealing with me knows that by watching what I post about and complain about. So your comment above is simply over the top and dishonest.

That's the way to wisdom and intelligence. You've got it, Jason.

Evidence Droopy. Proof. Show us where the ban was divinely appointed instead of acting like a prophet sent to cry repentance. Do better than just bearing your testimony. Open your eyes and maybe you will see as well. I used to be like you Droopy, well actually only sort of. Even as a defender I was never as angry, mean and nasty. I am still not. My evidence is I have never been banned from a board that discusses LDS topics. Try to walk in the other persons shoes a bit. It can be dangerous ground but is may enlighten you more than you can imagine. But I doubt you will. You will simply dismiss that suggestions. To do it scary and one never knows where it will lead. But it can change the world for you in ways that are fascinating and beautiful.

Feel free to have the last word Droopy. I don't have time for tit for tat personal threads. I know you don't like me and that I really bug you for some reason. I will do my best to avoid your petty personal comments in the future. If you have anything of substance to discuss I will do my best to respond civilly.

[_Droopy]

It is my duty as a priesthood bearer to warn you of the consequences of continuing and moving deeper into apostasy

No not really.

Yes, really.

D&C 20:38-59:

The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize;

And to ordain other elders, priests, teachers, and deacons;

And to administer bread and wine—the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ—

And to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the scriptures;

And to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church;

And to confirm the church by the laying on of the hands, and the giving of the Holy Ghost;

And to take the lead of all meetings.

The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy Ghost, according to the commandments and revelations of God.

The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament,

And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present;

But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize,

And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion requires.

The teacher’s duty is to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;

And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;

And see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty.

And he is to take the lead of meetings in the absence of the elder or priest—

And is to be assisted always, in all his duties in the church, by the deacons, if occasion requires.

But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;

They are, however, to WARN, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ.

Two reasons. One I am fully aware of what the scriptures say about apostasy.

Glad to hear that, but I'll be glad to remind you when you speak ill of the Lord's anointed in our day, attack Church doctrines as "racist" or immoral, or slander Joseph Smith in public here.

In fact I have no doubt I know them as well as you.

I'm sure you have no doubt.

The next reason is you really are not motivated to correct me and remind me out of pure and righteous motives. Rather your motives are based in a seemingly deep seated need you have score points on a message board.

When in doubt and in desperate need of self justification, project.

Most of the digs your throw out like this are targeted at person that are still participants in the Church who also may take issue with things that we have discovered demonstrate that the Church is not what it claimed to be.

This kind of sophistry may make you feel somehow morally superior to your critics and assuage the bad conscience that provokes your incessant anti-Mormon postings and attacks on the Brethren here, but it hardly passes the smell test of ingenuousness.

If you were motivated by the love of Christ and other righteous desires the way fulfilled your priesthood duty would be very different.

Now look who's ladling out sanctimonious judgement.

If you can demonstrate where I have protested about things from LDS leaders and Joseph Smith are not true then perhaps a jab is in order. So far you have not succeeded in this.

How many years back am I allowed to go?

Your approach is to exercise unrighteous dominion. Read D&C 121. Practice it.

I can't possibly exercise unrighteous dominion over you. I have no dominion over you. I can do nothing to you, or about you, nor do I have any intention or desire to. This is a message board. l am arguing against your apostate perspectives, claims, and attitudes. I have no "dominion" and hence, can exercise nothing in regard to it.

You are beginning to show the classic paranoia, persecution complex, and sense of being zeroed in on that is textbook, in my experience and observation, regarding people who deny the sun is shining as they are in the very act of looking into it and apostatize from the gospel and then attempt to turn on the Church and rend it.

Every criticism you receive regarding what is, in my view, your generally poorly constructed arguments and lack of intellectual rigor in approaching your criticisms, including huge leaps of inference from a premise to a conclusion without taking stock of clearly present logical alternatives, repetitious question begging, and personal defamation and calumniating of past and present General Authorities is apparently perceived by you as persecution by unrighteous dominators seeking somehow to cast a priesthood spell on you of some kind.

This is where it in many cases leads. In time, you'll be here claiming the SCMC is tapping your phones. The "bitter fruits" of apostasy are just that...bitter, and indeed, rotten.

I feel no need to give a detail of what I discuss with my leaders to you.

I didn't ask for that. I asked whether you discuss your extensive anti-Mormon posting history here with them.

But I will say that topics touched upon include polygamy, polyandry, Joseph Smith marrying teens and the compulsion he used to convince women to marry him, his treatment of Emma in this process, First Vision questions, BYs off the wall teachings about Adam God and blood atonement, everything we have discussed here about the priesthood ban, how the Church presents a history that focuses only on the postive, the bland curriculum that has come from correlation, why we are losing young people. So yea Droopy I have discussed a lot with my leaders.

Well, its all the standard boilerplate stuff that has had plausible, sturdy answers for any open, unprejudiced mind for a very long time. Anyone with a testimony of the gospel (the prerequisite for sucessfully negotiating any of the above questions) and willing to give the Church and the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to removing the benefit of the doubt from them and transferring it to one's own doubts and criticisms or to supporting critics outside the Church, need not come to the crisis position you have come to, nor need he come to the position of public criticism of the Church in an attempt to influence others away from their testimony and faith.

Defend away. But if your defense consists of telling me how darkened my mind now is

The clear state of affairs, in my opinion;

Oh brother. In other words you have no evidence so you plead testimony special knowledge from God.

No evidence of what? You have years of posting history here attacking, impugning, and personally defaming individual Church leaders (especially Joseph Smith) and attacking core doctrine. Are you actually going to pretend it isn't here and ask me to go dredge it up as "evidence?"

That's real chutzpah. There's enough just on the priesthood ban issue for a short monograph.

I do not think everything in the Church is crap. But once you take off the glasses you can see in many cased the emperor really has no clothes on many instances. The topic of this thread is one of them.

That's your subjective perception, I understand.

More over the top hyperbole. The truth is my complaints are limited and narrow.

Oh, I see. In one paragraph, "most" of what the Church teaches is false and its teachings are clearly without foundation "in many instances." In another paragraph, your complaints are "limited and narrow." When you decide what you really think, really mean to say, and realize that you can't have it both ways here, come back and perhaps clarify your actual perspective with a bit more lucidity.

Anyone who is honest in dealing with me knows that by watching what I post about and complain about. So your comment above is simply over the top and dishonest.

Either that, or you're so confused about your own actual positions that the inconsistent and philosophically flimsy approach to take to making your case is evidence of both intellectual dishonesty with yourself as well as a self serving desire to appear morally and spiritually superior to those you offend by your obnoxious, self righteous personal attacks on the Church and its leaders by posturing as offended and shocked by strong reactions to your constant anti-Mormon polemics.

Evidence Droopy. Proof. Show us where the ban was divinely appointed instead of acting like a prophet sent to cry repentance. Do better than just bearing your testimony. Open your eyes and maybe you will see as well.

You sound just like Tal Bachman after the music industry culture absorbed him back into its worldly tissues. Don't expect me to abandon my testimony for the thin gruel of self referential psychological dynamics and subjective wish fantasy. Its hard enough to keep those things at bay as it is.

I used to be like you Droopy, well actually only sort of. Even as a defender I was never as angry, mean and nasty.

Neither am I, ever, unless people ask for it and bring it on themselves. I'm not perfect, and I'm human, and part of my personality is to treat others as they treat me. That's not as advanced a state as treating others well even when they defame and mock things that are sacred to me, or attack others whom I deeply respect and revere, but its who I am at present.

Indeed, I spent many of my younger years as probably far to civil and respectful of people and discourse that did not deserve that kind of deference in the name of getting along. That attitude cankered and restricted my psychological growth and wasn't particularly healthy, in a psychological and emotional sense, to the lengths I carried it.

My natural inclination is to actively listen, analyze, facilitate alternative possibilities using calm, rational. logical argument, and to negotiate closed minds and an attitude of pugnacious certainty toward open questions with philosophical discipline. Unfortunately, you happen to bring out the lesser approach, which also exists in my nature.

I've had a fair number of discussions over the years, usually in the Celestial Room, with people who disagree with me but who treat me with civility and respect. Just recently, there was an extended debate on theodicy, which I had started in the Celestial, with Stak. It was a nice, interesting, civil, and philosophically intensive discussion. Another discussion, on economics, took place with Analytics. Stak and I agree on little, and Analytics is an unalloyed Marxist, but the discussion was still productive on both sides.

Believe me, the reason our debates always become personal is not centered only in me.

Feel free to have the last word Droopy.

Which way did he go, George?