In the spirit of MikeWaters' religious and political conspiracy theories

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

When have I claimed God is the author of the Bible?

It is a testament by men of God's dealings with them as interpreted by them, in order to provide us theological and ethical instruction in behavior.

God did not write it. It is not his biography. We don't even know if Isaiah authored the entire book, or if it's not the compilation of three authors.

I didn't say "author of the Bible." I said author of certain doctrine and events. Samuel gives God's charge to Saul with the literal words "thus saith the LORD of hosts." You have given me no reason beyond your own musings why I should believe that God didn't actually command this.

Originally Posted by Archaea

It has the theoretical chance, but given a thorough analysis I doubt it. I can see very little reason for it to have been the will. I'd rate this on a scale, of 99.9 % chance that is wasn't the will of God, and a 0.1% it was. Of course, I'd rate the chance that the sun will not rise tomorrow at about 0.1% as well. Your point is clear, you just give too much credence to man.

So we're weighing the entire body of doctrine and leadership of 11 prophets against your "thorough analysis." I would think even the brightest Mormon scholar would balk a little at that contest.

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. Even when I was active LDS I never believed God really talked to leaders of the Church.

"Talk" is a term that would need defining in this context to give a fair answer. But in the broadest sense, yes, I believe God talks to his prophets. I think that's a presumption we have to operate from to even have this conversation.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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

Would someone mind pointing me to the contextual reference for this quote?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hyrum

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.

What have you been taught?

About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’ 14But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.’ 15The voice said to him again, a second time, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ 16This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven. 17 Now while Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen, suddenly the men sent by Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon’s house and were standing by the gate. 18They called out to ask whether Simon, who was called Peter, was staying there. 19While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, ‘Look, three* men are searching for you. 20Now get up, go down, and go with them without hesitation; for I have sent them.’ 21So Peter went down to the men and said, ‘I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for your coming?’ 22They answered, ‘Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say.’ 23So Peter* invited them in and gave them lodging.


Taken from the tenth chapter of Acts by Luke.


It was a clear Jewish tradition that Gentiles were unclean. Whether that was a valid tradition is subject to debate, but significant authorities exist that some segments of Jewish society did not agree with teaching the Gentiles. Else why would Peter have to be taught?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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.

It's interesting that the Saints followed Joseph from New York to Kirtland to Missouri to Illinois, and eventually behind Brigham Young to Utah, persecuted as they went starting over and over and over again; they were killed and their lands taken; they settled an infertile land; they were called on missions to far away places for years at a time away from their families; they were asked to discard their natural monogamous traditions ...

... and yet, giving the blacks the priesthood was too much.

Yes, that's the obvious choice. Kill us, burn our homes, rape our wives and children, but the priesthood to the black man? We can't handle that.

Perfectly logical.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's interesting that the Saints followed Joseph from New York to Kirtland to Missouri to Illinois, and eventually behind Brigham Young to Utah, persecuted as they went starting over and over and over again; they were killed and their lands taken; they settled an infertile land; they were called on missions to far away places for years at a time away from their families; they were asked to discard their natural monogamous traditions ...

... and yet, giving the blacks the priesthood was too much.

Yes, that's the obvious choice. Kill us, burn our homes, rape our wives and children, but the priesthood to the black man? We can't handle that.

Perfectly logical.

Simplify then exaggerate.

Were there none that fell away?

Do all persons handle all trials the same way?

You must be proud to believe God is a racist.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You must be proud to believe God is a racist.

Maybe you look it as racist. Maybe God, who possesses a helluva lot more perspective than you or I, has a perfectly justifiable reason.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/5

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's interesting that the Saints followed Joseph from New York to Kirtland to Missouri to Illinois, and eventually behind Brigham Young to Utah, persecuted as they went starting over and over and over again; they were killed and their lands taken; they settled an infertile land; they were called on missions to far away places for years at a time away from their families; they were asked to discard their natural monogamous traditions ...

... and yet, giving the blacks the priesthood was too much.

Yes, that's the obvious choice. Kill us, burn our homes, rape our wives and children, but the priesthood to the black man? We can't handle that.

Perfectly logical.

Nice dramatic touch, Tex. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't much of an issue and not widely known (even within the church) until the twentieth century, as SteelBlue has repeatedly pointed out. At one point (I think it was early twentieth century) there was a mission president in either Haiti or the Dominican Republic who was presiding over a mission where many blacks were being converted. He wrote to the church headquarters saying that someone in the church has told him that he should stop ordaining blacks. He was stunned since he had never heard of such a thing and he was writing to get confirmation that such a policy did not exist. He got a letter from the first presidency telling him that the rumor was true and that he should stop.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Maybe you look it as racist. Maybe God, who possesses a helluva lot more perspective than you or I, has a perfectly justifiable reason.

And most probably, God didn't do it. He allowed because he doesn't intervene to interrupt the agency of even his prophets.

God did NOT do it. Do I have absolute proof? No, but I have absolute proof of nothing so if we are reduced to absolute proofs, we can discuss nothing.

I agree with SIEQ, it was an unfortunate racist policy that has changed. Even good men, which I assert Brigham Young was, make bad mistakes. This was perhaps his grandest. None of the arguments are very convincing, even though when faced with the question I even made some of those arguments to investigators.

Yes God plays by a different set of rules, but he is no respecter of persons, and Elijah Abel is the key proof that BY implemented it based on bad information and many of the other prophets until DoM just didn't care to inquire.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Nice dramatic touch, Tex. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't much of an issue and not widely known (even within the church) until the twentieth century, as SteelBlue has repeatedly pointed out.

Archaea has taken the tact that it is outside the character of God to have instituted/approved/authored/inspired such a policy.

Absent a response to my questions, I decided to postulate whether following a prophet who decided to rescind the ban pre-Kimball would be outside the character of the early Saints.

I don't deny that it may not have been widely known, but only further supports my point. Clearly if they could follow a prophet through those other things, they could follow him through this.

Originally Posted by Archaea

many of the other prophets until DoM just didn't care to inquire.

Did "thorough research" lead you to this conclusion as well?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Archaea has taken the tact that it is outside the character of God to have instituted/approved/authored/inspired such a policy.

Absent a response to my questions, I decided to postulate whether following a prophet who decided to rescind the ban pre-Kimball would be outside the character of the early Saints.

I don't deny that it may not have been widely known, but only further supports my point. Clearly if they could follow a prophet through those other things, they could follow him through this.

Let's follow this logic. It's out of God's character to inspire this.

And you show some trials to allegedly demonstrate Saints could have dealt with reality? What does that have to do with God's character?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Archaea has taken the tact that it is outside the character of God to have instituted/approved/authored/inspired such a policy.

Absent a response to my questions, I decided to postulate whether following a prophet who decided to rescind the ban pre-Kimball would be outside the character of the early Saints.

I don't deny that it may not have been widely known, but only further supports my point. Clearly if they could follow a prophet through those other things, they could follow him through this.



Did "thorough research" lead you to this conclusion as well?

Show me writings that others inquired, and I'll retract it.

I know the book about DoM discusses it. I've read a bit about each prophet and found nothing to show others were concerned with the issue? Have you?