Hmmm, what evidence is there that people thought the ban was temporary and would be reversed within a generation or two?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:Hmmm, what evidence is there that people thought the ban was temporary and would be reversed within a generation or two?
Brigham Young stated that the ban would be overturned at the end of the Millenium, after every other male had had a chance to receive the priesthood.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
I have a question wrote:Hmmm, what evidence is there that people thought the ban was temporary and would be reversed within a generation or two?
Brigham Young stated that the ban would be overturned at the end of the Millenium, after every other male had had a chance to receive the priesthood.
“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. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God” (Brigham Young, August 19, 1866, Journal of Discourses 11:272).
Not sure that's sufficient to say the contemporary wisdom was that the ban was temporary. Especially when the Church has not only reversed the ban within 130 years of that statement, but they have completely disavowed the idea that a black skin is a sign of a curse from God.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:Hmmm, what evidence is there that people thought the ban was temporary and would be reversed within a generation or two?
Brigham Young stated that the ban would be overturned at the end of the Millenium, after every other male had had a chance to receive the priesthood.
Actually, I thought the teaching was "after the sons of Abel" had the opportunity. An interesting choice since Abel was killed. Perhaps referring to future creations.
Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity—thou must commune with God. - Joseph Smith
JLHPROF wrote:Actually, I thought the teaching was "after the sons of Abel" had the opportunity. An interesting choice since Abel was killed.
The Bible never says that Abel was killed before he had children.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
In my opinion, Scott wants to defend the church so badly and be the G.A. lap dog so badly that he will say anything in defense of the church, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how unsupported it is with the facts. Come to think of it, I think he lives in a "faith" based world where the only history that exists is the history that supports the church 100%.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Exiled wrote:In my opinion, Scott wants to defend the church so badly and be the G.A. lap dog so badly that he will say anything in defense of the church, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how unsupported it is with the facts. Come to think of it, I think he lives in a "faith" based world where the only history that exists is the history that supports the church 100%.
That's just the kind of advocate the GAs need. Anything less just doesn't seem to help them, but ends up complicating the GAs' purposes.
Exiled wrote:In my opinion, Scott wants to defend the church so badly and be the G.A. lap dog so badly that he will say anything in defense of the church, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how unsupported it is with the facts. Come to think of it, I think he lives in a "faith" based world where the only history that exists is the history that supports the church 100%.
This is a good definition of church broke. To be a leader in the upper tiers, you have to be completely church broke. They evaluate and test each candidate as they move up the ladder. SP, Area Authority, First quorum of Seventy, and then onto the show.
At these higher levels having cog dis and questions just won't do.
I have a question wrote:Not sure that's sufficient to say the contemporary wisdom was that the ban was temporary. Especially when the Church has not only reversed the ban within 130 years of that statement, but they have completely disavowed the idea that a black skin is a sign of a curse from God.
That comment though is what gives the theology for it being temporary. It's not permanent so the question of "when" is up for debate. I'd have to check and don't have it handy, but I think that BYU Studies paper on Kimball and the revelation portrays the standard view being that it would be lifted but no one knew when. It's possible that's due to bias from Ed Kimball, the author as I recall, but I think many people just assumed it'd be lifted at some time without being clear when. However clearly there also was a school of interpretation (and I think McConkie was part of this) who felt Brigham was giving doctrine and it'd literally be after everyone else.
I'm not sure how to tell how many were in each camp. While I was pretty young at the time, I recall everyone being pretty happy about it yet not that surprised.
