Question for Mo Experts

[Morley]

MG, I don't think you ever responded to this, either.

President McKay sweat it out beseeching the Lord to reveal an answer to the priesthood ban and authorize him to reverse it. President McKay admitted that the Lord told him it wasn’t time. Can you imagine how McKay felt knowing the ramifications of this revelation from the Lord?

A lot of folks would have showered praises on him if he would have received another revelation. No doubt.

The interesting question here would be, did President McKay think that God was leading the church into grievous error?

I doubt it.

He simply followed the Lord’s will. Did he have questions as to why the time wasn’t right. I’ll bet he did.

According to you, God had 1969's First Presidency under McKay say this:

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, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”


A decade later, your version of God would instruct the Church to say that the discrimination by the Church toward Blacks was indeed something "which originated with man," and that God really had nothing to do with it. Oh, and forget that pre-existence stuff.

Why wouldn't God just answer his prophet's sincere questions?

Why would God allow Pres. McKay to be deceived? Why would God allow Pres. McKay to deceive the members of the Church?

[MG 2.0]

Earlier, if you remember, I said that answers from God may include “no” or “wait”.

Meh. I'm fine with God saying "no" or "wait." I'm not fine with God either letting his prophets say things, or instructing them to pass on doctrine, that another prophet would, 30 years later, say are not true.


This is what I wrote earlier:

Here's the Church's 1949 statement:

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the 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. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.


You're saying this statement was God's will. Right?

I'll repeat my question. You're saying this statement was God's will. Right?

I’ve referred to President McKay. I would default first to what he said:

President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Then I would end with what Elder McConkie said in 1978:

Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It is unclear wether the position taken in regards to priesthood restriction was considered to be revelation or not through Brigham Young. What we do know is that the Brethren were convinced that a change to the priesthood restriction could not take place unless a revelation was received. Earlier I mentioned President McKay’s frustration that he could not get that affirmative revelation but was essentially told to wait.

So, was the 1949 statement God’s will? I don’t know for a fact that the doctrinal positions were one hundred per cent correct as stated at that time. Whether the will of God was that the Negro race was to not receive the priesthood for a period of time for reasons known to Him is the position that a believing member is under obligation to consider as binding.

And that becomes a matter of faith in the restoration as a whole.

It’s a hard position to be totally on board with because of the messiness associated with the cultural milieu beliefs at the time that are seemingly mixed in with the First Presidency positions that were signed off on by the presiding brethren.

It’s not all clean. There’s indeed some messiness to the whole thing. I struggle with it as many others have.

I do think that one can look at things from a vantage point of seeing messiness mixed with pure truth and see the pearl of great price encapsulated within.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

It is unclear wether the position taken in regards to priesthood restriction was considered to be revelation or not through Brigham Young.

A few sentences before you wrote this, you quoted McKay saying it was revelation.

Whether the will of God was that the Negro race was to not receive the priesthood for a period of time for reasons known to Him is the position that a believing member is under obligation to consider as binding.

I have no idea what this means.



edit spelling

[Morley]

MG. Which was it? Did God lie to his prophets? Or did his prophets not understand what God was saying--all while passing it off as God's will?

[Morley]

It’s a hard position to be totally on board with because of the messiness associated with the cultural milieu beliefs at the time that are seemingly mixed in with the First Presidency positions that were signed off on by the presiding brethren.

Yet you maintain that God has no obligation to answer the faithful and sincere enquiries of his prophets as they are struggling with what you call "the messiness associated with the cultural milieu beliefs at the time". And that God will let these prophets mislead the Church rather than answer their questions.

[MG 2.0]

MG. Which was it? Did God lie to his prophets? Or did his prophets not understand what God was saying--all while passing it off as God's will?

What I said.

I asked you to do this earlier but I’ll say it again. Read for comprehension. Read carefully. Read between the lines. Both of your questions were answered.

Earlier I refused to repeat myself. Again, I will not repeat what I’ve already said at one time or another on this thread.

And don’t put words in my mouth.

I’ll help you along a bit. Your questions show little or no nuance. My comments go in a direction that correlate with what might or could have been an extended version of your questions if they weren’t so restrictive and showed a bit more thoughtfulness and gave a bit more opportunity to answer without being limited to a yes or no response.

That’s a problem around here. The questions are at times a ‘set up’. As one of the talks in a GC put out there a few years ago, often the wrong questions are being asked.

When I’m thinking about these sorts of topics my mind goes all over the place. I have a difficult time being put in a tight box consisting of simple questions that don’t have simple answers and yet the interlocutor wants a simple answer.

A sound bite of sorts that ‘proves something’

Things aren’t that simple.

Anyway, that’s about all I have to say for now unless something comes along that takes a new twist or causes me to think more deeply in respect to a question that I haven’t pursued at any length.

Thanks for the conversation.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

If you ask God to plant your garden for you what would be your expectations?

If you ask God to fill your mind with all of the world’s knowledge what would be your expectations?

Regards,
MG

Yer right, I better stick with the important things like lost car keys and tulips in the garden.....

I wanted to say something on this earlier. Car keys. An answer given to an individual in need. Not every car key prayer request will be answered, but some requests may. Why the difference? Because God isn't obligated answer every prayer request. Period. He may have his reasons. We obviously are not privy to them.

Car keys. Important? Yes. To an INDIVIDUAL.

I think God’s modus operandi may be different in regards to working with populations and prophets vs. individual pleas for help.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

As one of the talks in a GC put out there a few years ago, often the wrong questions are being asked.

Ha! That you would include this says more about both you and the Conference speaker than you realize.

Stay well, MG.

Adieu.

[MG 2.0]

As one of the talks in a GC put out there a few years ago, often the wrong questions are being asked.

Ha! That you would include this says more about both you and the Conference speaker than you realize.

Stay well, MG.

Adieu.

I included it as an afterthought. Realizing that there are questions that are asked that are not expansive enough to really get at the heart of even larger question(s)/inquiries.

At the time this talk was given I pretty much poo-pooed it thinking that it was simply a tool to deflect from the question at hand that was critically important. I’ve come to realize that this is not always true.

Anyway, I value your perspective and that of others. It helps refine my own views and understandings.

Have a nice week!

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

MG. Which was it? Did God lie to his prophets? Or did his prophets not understand what God was saying--all while passing it off as God's will?

What I said.

I asked you to do this earlier but I’ll say it again. Read for comprehension. Read carefully. Read between the lines. Both of your questions were answered.

Earlier I refused to repeat myself. Again, I will not repeat what I’ve already said at one time or another on this thread.

And don’t put words in my mouth.

I’ll help you along a bit. Your questions show little or no nuance. My comments go in a direction that correlate with what might or could have been an extended version of your questions if they weren’t so restrictive and showed a bit more thoughtfulness and gave a bit more opportunity to answer without being limited to a yes or no response.

That’s a problem around here. The questions are at times a ‘set up’. As one of the talks in a GC put out there a few years ago, often the wrong questions are being asked.

When I’m thinking about these sorts of topics my mind goes all over the place. I have a difficult time being put in a tight box consisting of simple questions that don’t have simple answers and yet the interlocutor wants a simple answer.

A sound bite of sorts that ‘proves something’

Things aren’t that simple.

Anyway, that’s about all I have to say for now unless something comes along that takes a new twist or causes me to think more deeply in respect to a question that I haven’t pursued at any length....

That was the longest "nuh-uh-huh!" I think I've ever read. All you need is a "so are you but what am I? at the end to round it out.