Leaders ever say BY was wrong about Phood Ban?

[_mms]

I have been observing the conversations regarding the Priesthood Ban prompted by Professor Bott's comments. I cannot seem to find any prophet who has said that Brigham Young was wrong with regard to his comments regarding the reasons for the Priesthood Ban. It seems the Church has gone from knowing why the Ban was in place (BY surely knew and he spoke for the Church at the time) to suddenly not knowing anymore. When did the Church un-know what it once knew? And who expressed with authority that the Church had, in fact, received revelation that BY's reasons were wrong (without, apparently, learning what reasons were right). I am aware of Bruce McConkie's comments that leaders had made comments with limited understanding, but that did not denounce all of the reasons for the Ban--it only cast doubt and question upon them.

Simply, is there any authority for the proposition that the curse of cain explanation is unequivocally not correct? When did God tell us it was not correct and who did he tell and when did that person tell us that he told us? The Church was quick to say it completely disagreed with Bott, but on what basis? Did God reveal that the "possible theological underpinnings" voiced by Bott are not longer "possible theological underpinnings"? If the Church has not denounced the prior reasons, would it not make sense for Church membership to err on the side of what former prophets said about the reasons for the Ban since they were closest to God and entitled to revelation and spoke authoritatively and the Church has not yet come out and said those reasons were, in fact, wrong?

[_bcspace]

The Church has not abandoned any doctrines with it's response to the Bott comments in the Washington Post article.

[_Daheshist]

bcspace,

The Church HAS abandoned doctrines:

Adam-God...taught as doctrine all during the time of Brigham Young

Curse of Cain...called "a doctrine of the Church" in the Statement of the First Presidency on the Negro Question


Heavenly Incest, God had sex with Mary....Church no longer openly teaches this, thank God.

Doctrine means "teachings". It is whatever the President "says"; especially in General Conference.

The Church has not abandoned any doctrines with it's response to the Bott comments in the Washington Post article.

[_Daheshist]

Hinckley said during General Priesthood meeting on April 1st, 2001, that any man who believes that another man cannot hold the priesthood because of the color of his skin should not consider himself a disciple of Christ.

That is known as Hinckley's "April Fools Speech".

Of course, in essence, Hinckley was saying that all Mormon Prophets except for Joseph Smith and himself (up to that time) were no true disciples of Christ, because all of them taught that blacks could not hold the priesthood.

[_bcspace]

The Church HAS abandoned doctrines:

Adam-God was never a doctrine and the other two (which you misnamed) have not been abandoned.

[_Buffalo]

The Church HAS abandoned doctrines:

Adam-God was never a doctrine and the other two (which you misnamed) have not been abandoned.

Of course it was a doctrine. You would have been excommunicated if you'd opposed it too loudly. It was taught in the temple.

[_consiglieri]

Hi, mms!

In response to the question in the title of your OP, I am aware of absolutely zero GA's who have ever gone on record that BY was wrong about the priesthood ban. Although interestingly, Elder McConkie appears to have stated off the record that BY was wrong about the Adam-God Theory. If he could say the one, why couldn't he say the other? Perhaps he tacitly said as much in his comment about limited understanding.

The only quote I can think of that might approach what you are asking about is Spencer Kimball's comment prior to 1978 that the priesthood ban was "possibly" or "probably" in error.

Since 1978, however, my impression is that the LDS Church would just rather ignore it and pretend it never happened.

Although in their recent press release, the LDS Church did say it condemned racism whether in or out of the Church. Does that include Brigham Young?

Always best to retain plausible deniability, I suppose.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_bcspace]

Of course it was a doctrine. You would have been excommunicated if you'd opposed it too loudly. It was taught in the temple.

Not according to Nutall.

[_Buffalo]

Of course it was a doctrine. You would have been excommunicated if you'd opposed it too loudly. It was taught in the temple.

Not according to Nutall.

Nutall's opinion means fuckall.

[_Darth J]

Leaders ever say BY was wrong about Phood Ban?

The Word of Wisdom?