[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Perhaps "pleading" is too strong a word. The DOM book makes it clear that McKay did ask, while also noting that both Grant and Lee felt that a revelation was required to change it (as opposed to simple fiat).

But I don't want to wade too far back into the blacks/priesthood tall grass. We've been over this territory a thousand times already and it's redundant.

If we could return to the original topic ... I'd rather to stick with the ban as just an example of broader concept: that understanding the whereto's and the whyfor's is unnecessary for a strong testimony. Or further, that spending disproportionate focus on those things (in the noble name of "inoculation") can actually weaken faith.

Your thesis here, if I understand it correctly (I'm trying to be fair here), is that more scholarship, more information, more research can only be a good thing. Beyond that, you believe it is inevitable anyway, due to the speedy methods of disseminating knowledge these days. Thus, the church should not only accommodate, but facilitate.

My point is and has always been that such is fine for those who want it. But in the grand scheme of faith and testimony, it plays a near insignificant role (or ought to). A man's spiritual progression simply should not have any foundation on the details behind the priesthood ban, or any other controversial problem in scripture or church history. And I don't blame the church, nor do I think others should, for putting (relatively) minimal effort in facilitating it.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.