Why do you say that at the very least, God permitted it? You seem to be throwing out the possibility that at the very least it was racism by Church leaders that permitted it rather than God permitting it.

Here are my thoughts on the matter.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...35&postcount=1

Whose church is this? Is it the prophet's, or the Lord's? This issue isn't exactly some sort of irrelevant minutia that would get God to say "Meh. Either way..."

As B.H. Roberts so eloquently argued all those years ago, it's both the Lord's Church and the people's Church (a notion of the prophet's Church seems problematic to me). Roberts came to the conclusion that:

It's the Church

of Jesus Christ

and

of the Latter Day Saints


Fundamentalists, sychophants, and those who would esteem one flesh over another, who would worship Church leaders, have forgotten the second "of."

God has "permitted" all kinds of abominable acts by all kinds of people, some called to high and holy callings even.

That doesn't mean God endorses or approves of the acts of his children, because he "permits" them.

I'm still waiting for the church to formally apologize for all the lies (or "lesser light", if you will).

Yet, when we've seen people are far enough off track, God will send Abinadi, Samuel the Lamanite and many others into harms' way to set everyone straight when they had significantly strayed off of the correct path.

The simple fact is that either

1. Multiple prophets failed to heed God's displeasure with this doctrine/policy/practice
2. God didn't think it was important enough to get the saints back on track
3. God allowed it for purposes unknown to us

Does God get more upset with Noah's immorality and corruption of the church than racism?

Does he get more upset with people casting out the prophets and stoning them than he does with prophets that perpetuate a racist policy?

We have clear examples of a God who refuses to a God of inaction when it comes to matters of correcting his people which have gone astray. So why the inaction in this specific instance if it was clearly wrong and clearly against His will?

I'm not buying the "God allows" argument. God clearly has a threshold when it comes to misdeeds of his prophets and covenant people. Try and cite any other example where his prophets or members of the church have significantly strayed and not been punished or called to repentance over it.

God permitted the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, Idi Amin, and many other atrocities.

God's non-intervention is not a standard of acceptance.

Indy, when is the last time a prophet gave us a commandment in GC using the phrase "thus saith the Lord."

Serious question. I don't know the answer.

Your examples are from Old Testament times. The God of the New Testament is predominantly a noninterventionist. I note approvingly that the person the church appointed to act as spokesperson for the 30th anniversary of the priesthood ban said that denial of the priesthood to blacks was based on folklore, not doctrine.

None of the above were under the auspices of his prophet. God's not intervening in atrocities is not even remotely the same as failing to provide proper guidance and a word of warning when people go significantly astray.

Is porn more important than racism? The Word of Wisdom? Keeping a journal? Food storage?