Was the priesthood ban revelation?

Public forum to discuss questions about Mormon history and doctrine.
Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16070
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Was the priesthood ban revelation?

Post by Curt Sunshine » 19 Oct 2017, 20:22

No. Period. Full stop. (in my mind and, I believe, according to the recent essay)
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

Dkormond
Posts: 12
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 21:15

Re: Was the priesthood ban revelation?

Post by Dkormond » 19 Oct 2017, 20:36

DoubtingTom wrote:This is really hard issue for me. Brigham taught the ban as if it was revelation, using clear wording to that effect. So it begs the question, if a prophet can teach false doctrine believing it comes from God, and members can hear and accept that doctrine and get a confirmation from the spirit that it's true, then what trust can we have today that either a prophet is teaching true doctrine from God and also whether or not we are receiving a confirmation?

The only answer that satisfies my mind is that it all comes from humans - the doctrines the prophet teaches, the spiritual witness that confirms it. It all comes from an internal source - our minds.

So to answer the original question: No. Brigham taught his opinion and thought it was revelation from God.

I agree with your assessment. If you read what B.Y. Taught he clearly taught that black people are the seed of Cain and unworthy. That belief was taught by the church for generations. Have you ever read the talk by Mark E. Peterson given in a general conference where he taught that as black people accept the gospel their skin turns lighter?

How many other revelations have been opinion? There is plenty of evidence that polygamy was just an opinion. Have any of you seen the now deleted section 101 from the D&C? So was God lying during that revelation?

I am at a huge loss here. How do I trust anything?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16070
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Was the priesthood ban revelation?

Post by Curt Sunshine » 19 Oct 2017, 20:39

By recognizing that one wrong (or even a lot of wrongs) doesn't invalidate many rights.

You need to let go of the classic all-or-nothing mindset. It simply is incorrect and faulty thinking, even if it is encouraged by way too many members and leaders. Accept Pres. Uchtdorf's mindset, instead. If it works for an apostle, it is a valid Mormon approach. :D
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 6807
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Was the priesthood ban revelation?

Post by SilentDawning » 20 Oct 2017, 08:20

Curt Sunshine wrote:
19 Oct 2017, 20:39
By recognizing that one wrong (or even a lot of wrongs) doesn't invalidate many rights.

You need to let go of the classic all-or-nothing mindset. It simply is incorrect and faulty thinking, even if it is encouraged by way too many members and leaders. Accept Pres. Uchtdorf's mindset, instead. If it works for an apostle, it is a valid Mormon approach. :D
The other good thing about this is that it underscores the importance of self-determination in the gospel. If a non-revelatory policy change by a Prophet can morph into doctrine, if an order from a church leader can lead to 100 righteous men committing murder (Mountain Meadows), and if Uchdorft can admit openly that past leaders hae made mistakes, it UNDERSCORES THE IMPORTANCE OF MOVING FORWARD ON THE BASIS OF PERSONAL CONSCIENCE.

And that is liberating. For me, the essay on the Priesthood Ban is confirmation that we MUST be our own agents in deciding what to believe or do in the LDS church. Prophets can lead us astay, and thus affect the well being of millions. They are often right, and are certainly worth listening to -- that is a fact. But we should consider the directives of the prophets and our leaders, and then make out own decisions.

And as the priesthood ban has shown, people who chose NOT to accept institutionalized racism as doctrine, were in the right.

I look at the essay as an implicit declaration of personal freedom of conscience. It never says it outright, but the implications of the essay represent my own declaration of independence of thought and conscience.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"Stage 5 is where you no longer believe the gospel as its literally or traditionally taught. Nonetheless, you find your own way to be active and at peace within it". -- SD

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

My introduction: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1576

AmyJ
Posts: 721
Joined: 27 Jul 2017, 05:50

Re: Was the priesthood ban revelation?

Post by AmyJ » 20 Oct 2017, 09:17

SilentDawning wrote:
20 Oct 2017, 08:20

... we MUST be our own agents in deciding what to believe or do in the LDS church. Prophets can lead us astay, and thus affect the well being of millions. They are often right, and are certainly worth listening to -- that is a fact. But we should consider the directives of the prophets and our leaders, and then make out own decisions.

And as the priesthood ban has shown, people who chose NOT to accept institutionalized racism as doctrine, were in the right.

I look at the essay as an implicit declaration of personal freedom of conscience. It never says it outright, but the implications of the essay represent my own declaration of independence of thought and conscience.
I grew up with the concept that you need to reason things out as best as you could and use the best resources you could (including prayer) to gather information to make decisions on instead of doing things on faith. And part of the decision making process was analyzing and accepting probable known consequences. In fact, doing things just to do them was practically a sin in and of itself.

My dad used to say that we were being raised differently and we were both loved and hated as a family for this way of seeing things. It is only in the last year that I am starting to get a measure of the magnitude of what he meant. I get weird looks when I focus on our part in the choice making process, when I say "It's not that simple", etc. Even when I am making the TBM correct decisions, my motivation and enthusiasm often baffle people.

My husband gave me weird looks when I realize a sister in the ward needs a VT/friend and I start visiting her and decided I am her Visiting Teacher (she didn't have one, I checked). My reasoning: She just had a baby and is coming back to church. I have a 1 year old who outgrew baby stuff that I can give her, and I can relate to her experiences as being a mom again. I am going to befriend and love her anyways because I want to -so you might as well put my name down as her VT and mark the check boxes for something I was going to do anyways. Evidently, you don't go around deciding to be someone's VT. Or if you need a VT reassignment, you don't make a list of potential Visiting Teachers you would recommend be requested to be your VT based on your current life situation, current relationships within the ward and the schedules of the sisters you know...

My husband raised his eyebrows when in a joint interview with the Branch President I gave him my list of "perfect callings for me" as points to consider for future callings....

NOTE: All recommendations I put forth I make very clear are recommendations coming from me personally. I will defer to revelation if specific revelation is in play. If I am interested and involved, if the endeavor is worth my time and energy, then I am going to have an opinion and I am going to be involved - I am not going to sit back and wait passively.

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 6807
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Was the priesthood ban revelation?

Post by SilentDawning » 20 Oct 2017, 11:19

AmyJ wrote:
20 Oct 2017, 09:17
My husband raised his eyebrows when in a joint interview with the Branch President I gave him my list of "perfect callings for me" as points to consider for future callings....

NOTE: All recommendations I put forth I make very clear are recommendations coming from me personally. I will defer to revelation if specific revelation is in play. If I am interested and involved, if the endeavor is worth my time and energy, then I am going to have an opinion and I am going to be involved - I am not going to sit back and wait passively.
I think you are on the right track -- even though leaders say "it doesn't work that way" when you select where you want to serve, they are missing an important point of passion and motivation that serves the interests of the church, and the volunteer, at the same time.

I think it's great you made yourself the VT of the person who needed it, although I would have just started visiting the person unofficially. I would have simply reached out and said I wanted to help, and would love to come by. That I am not a VT officially, and this isn't a duty-bound assignment. That would create the kind of meaningful community people crave, and that systemized service doesn't necessarily promote. But you are being self-directed and finding joy in service that matters to you -- something I think all unorthodox people should consider doing to feel independent yet service minded at the same time. Kudos!
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"Stage 5 is where you no longer believe the gospel as its literally or traditionally taught. Nonetheless, you find your own way to be active and at peace within it". -- SD

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

My introduction: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1576

AmyJ
Posts: 721
Joined: 27 Jul 2017, 05:50

Re: Was the priesthood ban revelation?

Post by AmyJ » 20 Oct 2017, 11:31

SilentDawning wrote:
20 Oct 2017, 11:19
I think it's great you made yourself the VT of the person who needed it, although I would have just started visiting the person unofficially. I would have simply reached out and said I wanted to help, and would love to come by. That I am not a VT officially, and this isn't a duty-bound assignment. That would create the kind of meaningful community people crave, and that systemized service doesn't necessarily promote. But you are being self-directed and finding joy in service that matters to you -- something I think all unorthodox people should consider doing to feel independent yet service minded at the same time. Kudos!
Technically my VT'ee doesn't know that I am her Visiting Teacher. I consider myself her Visiting Teacher, and contact her accordingly. To me, being a visiting teacher means being a good friend, loving the mom first, then the kids and sharing a spiritual thought/uplifting message as prompted by the spirit.

I mentioned it to the R.S. president that I considered myself her Visiting Teacher more or less as an afterthought because I wanted the R.S. President to know that I was watching out for this sister so she didn't have to and Visiting Teaching is the lingo for that:)

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 6807
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Was the priesthood ban revelation?

Post by SilentDawning » 20 Oct 2017, 11:41

AmyJ wrote:
20 Oct 2017, 11:31
SilentDawning wrote:
20 Oct 2017, 11:19
I think it's great you made yourself the VT of the person who needed it, although I would have just started visiting the person unofficially. I would have simply reached out and said I wanted to help, and would love to come by. That I am not a VT officially, and this isn't a duty-bound assignment. That would create the kind of meaningful community people crave, and that systemized service doesn't necessarily promote. But you are being self-directed and finding joy in service that matters to you -- something I think all unorthodox people should consider doing to feel independent yet service minded at the same time. Kudos!
Technically my VT'ee doesn't know that I am her Visiting Teacher. I consider myself her Visiting Teacher, and contact her accordingly. To me, being a visiting teacher means being a good friend, loving the mom first, then the kids and sharing a spiritual thought/uplifting message as prompted by the spirit.

I mentioned it to the R.S. president that I considered myself her Visiting Teacher more or less as an afterthought because I wanted the R.S. President to know that I was watching out for this sister so she didn't have to and Visiting Teaching is the lingo for that:)
All wonderful stuff!! :clap: :clap: :clap:
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"Stage 5 is where you no longer believe the gospel as its literally or traditionally taught. Nonetheless, you find your own way to be active and at peace within it". -- SD

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

My introduction: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1576

User avatar
dande48
Posts: 1038
Joined: 24 Jan 2016, 16:35
Location: Wherever there is danger

Re: Was the priesthood ban revelation?

Post by dande48 » 20 Oct 2017, 15:04

Let's take the following example of "revelation": You lose your car keys, and appeal through prayer to the divine creator to find them. Then, suddenly it dawns on you where you last left them.

There are two possibilities. First is, God heard and answered your prayer by adjusting the synapsis in your brain to forumulate the exact location of the car keys. The second, is that you went into a light hypnotic state which allowed you to access your unconcious mind, which created a synaptic connection to a recessed memory, which carried on to the consious mind. This second explaination is what happens all the time, when someone has an "inspiration" or "epiphany" without appealing to divine inspiration.

The question is, how do you differentiate the two? On the one hand, a true believer could say that God, in knowing and creating everything, is ultimate responsible regardless of natural laws or the petitions of mankind. But that's a cheap answer, and would imply that God can lie.

If you are not the person recieving the revelation, you could ask the person who has made the claim several questions, including the scope of their revelatory gift and their degree of accuracy. Then, you can wait to see if their revelations are within the scope and accuracy. If not, you can safely determine that the revelator is either false or confused. Problem solved! Except, God revealed that he hates "sign seekers", and when a revelation fails it always gets reframed to automatically be true, or redefined as personal opinion.

You can also take a similar account of the personal revelation in your own life. How often, when you have felt you were inspired by God, have you been correct? If you say "100%", then you are either truly a prophet, bad at self-analysis, or one of the lucky .00001% of all humans. Let me tell you, there have been many times I've prayed to find my car keys, felt inspired to where they are, and spent the next 45 minutes frantically searching for their true location.

But given that your personal revelation is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, there is really no way to differentiate beforehand whether or not your revelations are true. The best approach you can take is admitting that you can be wrong, and correcting yourself when that happens. As for Brigham Young, of course he believed in his revelations 100%. But truthfully, I think it was impossible for him to determine which revelations came from a God (if any), and which were the result of subconsious synaptic connections being brought to the surface.

It's very easy to correct past religious leaders when they present a "revelation" which turned out to be false. But it's very difficult for religious leaders to rescind their own false "revelations"
"The whole world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel." - Horace Walpole

"Even though there are no ways of knowing for sure, there are ways of knowing for pretty sure."
-Lemony Snicket

Roy
Posts: 5013
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Was the priesthood ban revelation?

Post by Roy » 22 Oct 2017, 15:13

dande48 wrote:
20 Oct 2017, 15:04
If you are not the person recieving the revelation, you could ask the person who has made the claim several questions, including the scope of their revelatory gift and their degree of accuracy. Then, you can wait to see if their revelations are within the scope and accuracy. If not, you can safely determine that the revelator is either false or confused. Problem solved!
This only works for seemingly miraculous prophecy or prediction. Perhaps a more useful form of revelation is that of the personal nature that cannot be disproven. I felt a confirmation that my intended wife would be a good choice for me. I have felt that God loved (and redeemed) me in spite of myself. Perhaps something to give you the confidence to choose among competing imperfect options. What do you feel "called" to do? What kind of legacy do you want to leave behind? These, to me, are the best types of revelation.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

Post Reply