Hate to be rude but......

[_Themis]

Stoop to what levels? I'm not trying to play word games with you, I'm trying to understand what you expect the decision matrix to look like.

I thought I did. Again something that would be a negative impact on the church.

Well, we don't know whether He did, but stopped short of a physical manifestation intervention now, right?

In the case of Joseph Smith he failed in communicating then. Same with BY. Doesn't say much about God right?

It seems you are assuming that the date he wrote the revelation down is the same as the date that he received the revelation(s). I'm not sure that's the case.

You might want to study the issue a little more then. He identified the papyri before any translation, which didn't happen over night. The whole reason they bought it was because of Joseph Smith identification. Where did he get that information it was Abraham's words on it. Again God has to be a little slow to allow such a mistake that has impacted the church in a very negative way. If he can give Joseph Smith a very detailed story(not to mention over 500 pages for the Book of Mormon), he could easily make sure Joseph Smith knew that the papyri had nothing to do with it. In the end what really happened is that Joseph Smith made it up, but extreme bias causes many to come up with such bad apologia.

Correction did come, when His people had done their part.

Again God would have to be very stupid to let such a significant mistake not be corrected when it was made. This issue has affected the church in a significant way that should have been avioded

I disagree with you on the source of Abraham's words (obviously) and the priesthood matter, I think, was more than simply giving BY a pass (see below).

That's what some members want to believe. I think most people realize that this is not something God would want to give a pass on. It's not like it is only affecting BY or a small group of people.

I think the priesthood matter is a function of learning to love our neighbor. I think BY was a product of his time, as were several of his successors, who didn't fully appreciate the expression to love our neighbor.

This is BS. Their not going to learn to love thy neighbor by being silent on the issue. It's not like God or the saints were going to tell God to shove it.

I think there were many members of the Church who didn't (and still don't) fully appreciate what this command means. I think allowing them to work through this allowed that appreciation to take greater root in the subsequent generations.

I think this is wishful thinking. I don't see how subsequent generations would gain greater appreciation.

And, I think, God knowing that the Temple would be the source to right any wrongs, He stopped short of a "lightning-from-the-sky" type of correction.

I would think lightning bolt would be for non-believers. I'm sure God should be able to communicate successfully with their chosen servant. The wrongs still impact the church today, and just because God didn't want to correct his number one servant on the matter. Was he worried BY would say no. :)

Bear in mind that God has demonstrated a pattern of withholding further light and knowledge at various times - think of Moses and the greater and lesser laws relative to Israel.

It's not like they had to go and preach to black communities. You might also want to read about Peter and his revelation to take the gospel to all the world. Interesting that someone thought it important enough to correct Peter.

[_harmony]

Did God goof when he threatened Joe Smith with a flaming sword for failing to cheat on his wife?

At that point, Joseph had already committed adultery, so God was a little late with the angel.

[_ttribe]

I thought I did. Again something that would be a negative impact on the church.

Well, I suppose that could be just about anything.

In the case of Joseph Smith he failed in communicating then. Same with BY. Doesn't say much about God right?

It seems they may have failed to listen. It often takes two.

You might want to study the issue a little more then. He identified the papyri before any translation, which didn't happen over night. The whole reason they bought it was because of Joseph Smith identification. Where did he get that information it was Abraham's words on it. Again God has to be a little slow to allow such a mistake that has impacted the church in a very negative way. If he can give Joseph Smith a very detailed story(not to mention over 500 pages for the Book of Mormon), he could easily make sure Joseph Smith knew that the papyri had nothing to do with it. In the end what really happened is that Joseph Smith made it up, but extreme bias causes many to come up with such bad apologia.

I'm not sure how to make this more clear - we have no idea when Joseph Smith received the translation and in what order, your efforts to make this sound cemented not withstanding.

Again God would have to be very stupid to let such a significant mistake not be corrected when it was made. This issue has affected the church in a significant way that should have been avioded

How significant, really, do you think this has been? By way of information, I served my mission in TN and KY from 91-93 and I can tell you that this issue came up much less frequently than you might think. Furthermore, you might be surprised at just how segregated the Protestant sects tended to be down there. By some people's account, we were downright progressive in even having people of different skin color worship together.

That's what some members want to believe. I think most people realize that this is not something God would want to give a pass on. It's not like it is only affecting BY or a small group of people.

"Small" compared to what?

This is BS.

Nice.

Their not going to learn to love thy neighbor by being silent on the issue. It's not like God or the saints were going to tell God to shove it.

How much more invested is an individual in an idea when they transition into it themselves, rather than have it forced upon them?

I think this is wishful thinking. I don't see how subsequent generations would gain greater appreciation.

See above.

I would think lightning bolt would be for non-believers. I'm sure God should be able to communicate successfully with their chosen servant. The wrongs still impact the church today, and just because God didn't want to correct his number one servant on the matter. Was he worried BY would say no. :)

Obviously, He wasn't worried that BY would say "no." But, maybe, just maybe, there's a bigger picture here.

It's not like they had to go and preach to black communities. You might also want to read about Peter and his revelation to take the gospel to all the world. Interesting that someone thought it important enough to correct Peter.

Please don't patronize me...I think I've long since proven I'm not an idiot. In response, I can only say - http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eccl/3/1#1

[_sock puppet]

Did God goof from 1840 to 1978 in keeping men of color from holding the priesthood?

Nope. My opinion - BY made the mistake.

Whoa, hold on there. God let BY make a mistake and those that followed him perpetuate that mistake for 100+ years, with thousands of blacks suffering as the consequence?

What other traditions handed down from prior prophets that are observed by the Church are mistakes that God has not yet corrected?

What mistakes has TSM made that have yet to be corrected?

[Guest]

Why does God have to be "making it up"? The text could have existed independent of the papyri and there is no deception.

Then why use a medium that god would supposedly know would be outed for the document it truly was? Why not just use open revelation? It gives more firepower against than for...

I don't know. It seems Joseph Smith needed touchstones to get the ball rolling. I'm sure it's just unimaginable that revelation might be tailored to the hearer.

Visually appearing and audibly talking to Joseph Smith, a la the FV, seemed to get his attention. Why didn't God continue that instead of getting obtuse with the touchstone method?

[_sock puppet]

Did God goof when he told Brigham Young about Adam-God?

I doubt God ever said anything to BY about Adam-God.

Doubt it? Why? Wasn't BY a real prophet?

[_sock puppet]

Which do you think is more important to God, the content of the text, or how it was received by Joseph Smith?

Why was God restoring this truthful text via Joseph Smith? So that people would toss it aside because Smith said it was taken from papyri when it would later be shown not to have? Did God really want to throw truth-seekers a curve ball? Of course the veracity of how it was received was important, just as the appearance in the FV is of primary import.

[_Themis]

Well, I suppose that could be just about anything.

LOL I love the games apologists play. I think you know these would be important issues, but just don't want to admit it.

It seems they may have failed to listen. It often takes two.

Not much good are they. Joseph Smith seemed to get all kinds of angelic visitations, but couldn't get this one right :)

I'm not sure how to make this more clear - we have no idea when Joseph Smith received the translation and in what order, your efforts to make this sound cemented not withstanding.

Let me be more clear. Joseph Smith identified the papyri before any translation was given. Study the evidence. It's not that hard to understand. Why do you think they wanted to purchase it. Sure you could try an argue Joseph Smith received the translation in 1830 or maybe in 1820, but is it believable. You wonder why people get tired of apologetic games. Now how did Joseph get this idea about the papyri if he had already gotten the translation from God. Your argument is not realistic or believable, unless your really biased from the start.

How significant, really, do you think this has been? By way of information, I served my mission in TN and KY from 91-93 and I can tell you that this issue came up much less frequently than you might think. Furthermore, you might be surprised at just how segregated the Protestant sects tended to be down there. By some people's account, we were downright progressive in even having people of different skin color worship together.

I served in the south as well, and it was an issue for some. Most of the other didn't know about it, and as missionaries we tried to keep it that way for as long as possible. Just because the church was making mistakes does not mean that other religions were not making mistakes as well. Most members I knew were happy to see the change.

"Small" compared to what?

The idea is that God may not intervene on things that affect BY or a small group around him, but bigger issues I think God would intervene in the best interest of the church and world, not BY. His job is to listen and tell everyone else anyways.

How much more invested is an individual in an idea when they transition into it themselves, rather than have it forced upon them?

Again it's not all about BY and a few others. I think he would do like he did with Peter since both are about the interests of God and the rest of the world. And the church did not learn anything from this. It was mainstream society that helped move the church along behind them, like they do to much of the time, instead of the church leading the way. Hmm

Obviously, He wasn't worried that BY would say "no." But, maybe, just maybe, there's a bigger picture here.

Not likely. The church would not have been impacted negatively by correcting BY, and again it doesn't mean that they would have to go to black areas and preach to them. The church instead would have been in the lead for once or at least not behind. Not denying priesthood based on race wouldn't force anyone to change their views about blacks, but it may have helped.

Please don't patronize me...I think I've long since proven I'm not an idiot. In response, I can only say - http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eccl/3/1#1

It's a classic example of why if it was a mistake by BY that God would have intervened to correct a great wrong before real damage was done. There is not much point of having a prophet is he can't be trusted on important issues. by the way this is the usual weak answer for why people can't really explain why God does dumb things.

[_sock puppet]

Look, it's my opinion that the Priesthood restriction was a mistake. There is evidence that several Church Presidents tried to get it reversed but couldn't get the entire 12 on board, until Spencer W. Kimball did in 1977. The fact of the matter is that God has long since provided the Church a conduit for the correction of such mistakes in the administration of His kingdom - the Temple. Frankly, I don't know how to explain why a parent would allow his children to grow through their own errors.

Then the lot of them must numbskulls if it took so long for the omnipotent God to get through to them to make the change. Obviously, the Church was "led astray" on this by BY and God couldn't get through to the successive FP/12 for over 100 years. Gee, maybe God right now is trying to tell BKP that masturbation is okay, but BKP just doesn't get it so there's all this guilt etc. This is not a winning program God's got going on, if He exists and has anything to do with COJCOLDS.

[_sock puppet]

I seem to remember a story in which it was justified even killing someone to save the faith of countless others.(Laban maybe?) Some extremely minor meddling in the free/will of those that made the choice/where chosen and know of it, is a pretty small thing.

You are talking about the exception to the rule, not the rule itself.

Yeah, but nobody had to be killed (the general rule about not killing others) for BY and the successive FP/12 to correct the black priesthood ban for more than 100 years. And think of all the blacks dwindling in disbelief because of no priesthood or temple ordinances, or active missionary teaching to them. What had to be killed was this presumption that whatever the titular head of COJCOLDS says is unassailable and must be followed by the members. That's right, all that had to be killed was an ego trip.