In the spirit of MikeWaters' religious and political conspiracy theories

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm saying that in a church that claims continuing revelation from God through His chosen prophet, that a long-standing doctrine/policy that survives 11 different prophets at least has the CHANCE of actually being the will of God.

Do you even allow the possibility that church presidents don't actually talk to God and, therefore, don't have any special insight as to God's will? It seems like you're ignoring the most obvious explanation. Even when I was active LDS I never believed God really talked to leaders of the Church.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Do you even allow the possibility that church presidents don't actually talk to God and, therefore, don't have any special insight as to God's will? It seems like you're ignoring the most obvious explanation.

If you believe that prophets are called of God and receive continuing revelation, how is your hypothetical a tenable position?

In my own limited church experience, I have personal experiences about where I was able to gain insight about God's will concerning myself, my family and my church calling. Given that, I can't fathom how someone 50 rungs up the ladder from me is flying blind.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If you believe that prophets are called of God and receive continuing revelation, how is your hypothetical a tenable position?

In my own limited church experience, I have personal experiences about where I was able to gain insight about God's will concerning myself, my family and my church calling. Given that, I can't fathom how someone 50 rungs up the ladder from me is flying blind.

Not that I consider that position tenable, but this is exactly the point for which you berated me, I "hadn't considered or excluded a possibility completely". You don't consider all possibilities either based upon your knowledge, experience and study.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

In the absence of that, we have two recorded instances of divine feedback:

1. DOM: 'It is not yet time and stop bothering me'
2. SWK: 'All worthy males'

Therefore there are a lot of blanks to be filled by people that don't have sufficient data to do so. Please excuse my misguided heretical notions.

We also have Harold B. Lee: "Blacks will not receive the priesthood as long as I am alive."

A truly prophetic statement, that one.

What is missing is the "why" regarding President McKay being told it is not yet time. Was it not yet time because God simply did not want the policy changed yet, or was it not yet time because the church's higher leadership was not ready to administer the change?

Or maybe there were other reasons (or combination of reasons). For instance, when President McKay was trying to open a mission in Nigeria, things kept just happening to prevent it - then a huge civil war broke out that would certainly have affected any church leadership and organization over there.

I personally believe the "why" was a combination of factors, with one of them being that the racial prejudices of the church hierarchy at the time simply would not foster the proper spirit of administration of the change in policy.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

We also have Harold B. Lee: "Blacks will not receive the priesthood as long as I am alive."

Would you care to explain, given that single sentence quote how we are to tell if he meant

A. 'It's my opinion that God will not say the time is come until after I have died.'

or

B. 'Over my dead body'

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If you believe that prophets are called of God and receive continuing revelation, how is your hypothetical a tenable position?

It depends on how you define revelation. I know some members think that God has a seat at the round table when the brethern get together and has actually conversations with them. Most members, though, believe that church leaders pray for guidance and then try figure things out for themselves. If you buy the latter scenario, then you still have to decide how much guidance God gives to those who pray for it. It is entirely plausible for a member of the church to believe in revelation and still allow the possibility that church leaders aren't necessarily clued into the will of God.

In my own limited church experience, I have personal experiences about where I was able to gain insight about God's will concerning myself, my family and my church calling. Given that, I can't fathom how someone 50 rungs up the ladder from me is flying blind.

Again, you have no way of knowing you were gaining any insight about God's will. I don't doubt your sincerity, but the truth is that you have no way of knowing that whatever insight you received had anything to do with God's will. It seems to me that a reasonable would always allow the possibility that their notion of God and God's will was incorrect.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Would you care to explain, given that single sentence quote how we are to tell if he meant

A. 'It's my opinion that God will not say the time is come until after I have died.'

or

B. 'Over my dead body'

It was stated in a context of what would happen if a relative were to marry a black and in a context that left one in no uncertain terms that it was "over my dead body."

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Would you care to explain, given that single sentence quote how we are to tell if he meant

A. 'It's my opinion that God will not say the time is come until after I have died.'

or

B. 'Over my dead body'

Given his continued and vocal resistance to blacks receiving the priesthood (as related in the David O. McKay biography), I took it as the latter.

The quote is from memory, but I think it's pretty close. Which of the choices does it sound like to you?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Given his continued and vocal resistance to blacks receiving the priesthood (as related in the David O. McKay biography), I took it as the latter.

The quote is from memory, but I think it's pretty close. Which of the choices does it sound like to you?

I honestly don't know. I'm loathe to figure out what one short sentence means without any context.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Let's look at your "concrete" examples.

Levitical and denial of inclusion by Jews.

We have the Hebraic record which purports to allow a small tribe to be in charge of the Temple ceremony whereas other tribes have other duties. Does this have to be a divine designation or a designation Moses developed only to be allowed by God, because of the needs of a nomadic people?

It has been documented the Jews were an exclusionary people at the time of Christ and that Peter was apparently no different. Peter was taught to go to the Gentiles.

So do you think because God didn't argue with Peter, saying those old traditions were false any way, that God countenanced the old traditions? Or was God pragmatic simply saying, "come guys you've had enough time excluding others I'm tired of it, let's move on"?

Your examples are subject to varying interpretations are not concrete enough for me.

I disagree with the notion that Peter was taught only to teach to the Jews.
From what I have been taught, from the very beginning of Christ's life he was to teach to all peoples (hence the visit of the Maji at His birth, Christ's interaction with the Samaritans, etc). That idea should carry through to His Apostles.

Why God would "change his mind" and start again with a chosen people who alone would have a priesthood, exclud "so-called Laminites, etc, 1800 years later is a major flaw in Joseph Smith's attempt at convincing me he was instructed to reform the "true" Christian Church. He created a church which does many things to Old Testament ways, and in so many ways contrary to the new covenant of Christ.