Yeah we did. Pelagius was patronizing you a few times through this and you never did catch it.

Just messin with ya, MW. This was a good thread.

I have some thoughts on your definition of racism. I think I like it, but I'm not sure. Need to mull it over. I'll come back to it later.

That's a good summary. We could always take up the age-old discussion about whether something is good and therefore God endorses it or whether something good is such only because God endorsed it. That might be a more interesting way of discussing the same type of issue.

Is no one going to have a go at my previous question?

I remember in the early/mid 90's the spokesman for church was being interviewed on CNN or some similar channel, and he said flat out that this was never a doctrine of the LDS church. I can't find mention of this anywhere, but I remember it very clearly AND I remember Steve Benson doing a cartoon the next day mocking that statement, in which Moroni was replaced on the Temple Spires with Louis Armstrong. That one somebody should be able to find.

I fully agree with your bottom line. I also think, if my memory above is correct, that it's been disavowed at that lower level (church spokesman). I'm wondering if perhaps this occurred when the LA times broke their story that you mentioned in your original post.

There are many notions of what God allows, how God may communicate, how fallible religious leaders, and what religious leaders communicate.

And that is what this whole "blacks and the priesthood" dredges up, and that is why it is dangerous, and that is why IT IS NOT ADDRESSED.

It could be argued that the GAs do not trust the members with the truth. The more dangerous argument is that they do not trust themselves.

It makes me wonder what the brethren actually think about this. I'd be surprised if they all think it was simple racism on the part of the GAs over the course of 130 years. Even though the various racist positions have been disavowed in one way or another, I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the current leadership still hold private beliefs about the priesthood ban based on racist ideas. It really would be great if they'd just come out with some sort of reasoning already.

It is my impression a large number of the administrators are simply administrative leaders, knowing how to work the organization, but not doctrinally or theologically deep. That doesn't mean there aren't deep thinking leaders, but the rank and file leaders are probably not much better informed than the rank and file member.

It's comforting when you know there is always someone above you who can receive inspiration, even when you fail.

Which brings into full focus the gravity of the mantle of the prophet. Even for a man with Monson's experience, one wonders if there is some amount of trepidation.

Back when I was dedicating several hours a day to studying the gospel, I remember thinking that my local leaders seemed to have a very superficial understanding of the doctrines. That could have been my pride talking, but it could be the reality of a church that not only insists on a lay clergy, but that also strongly encourages the teaching of only the most superficial doctrines. What need is there for a deeper understanding?

What this whole episode seems to mean to me, is that the mantle of the prophet probably means God will inspire the prophet on matters the prophet considers important and which the prophet carefully thinks out in his mind. Thus, for some prophets such as BY or JT, they didn't think anything was wrong with racism and thus did not seek his inspiration on the matter.

Unfortunately that hypothesis doesn't hold for later prophets.