Believer or not, your epitome of desire, is to be named the Greatest I am.

It actually makes sense in the context of the entire speech. I think he means that the priesthood was removed from Cain for murdering his brother. And it would not be restored to Cain until after Abel's offspring have the fullness of the priesthood. He also said this in the same speech: “A man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of the priesthood. Why? Because they are the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty had ordained,”....“Who can help it — men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal, ‘I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure,’ and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes he says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more.”

One hundred and twenty six years later, on Brigham Youngs birthday, the priesthood ban was lifted.

 

We all have our lives, free agencies, and constitutional rights to believe and act as we will. I personally live by my conscience and doctrines of salvation as best as I understand them. And God has never told me to do evil. Fwiw, before I knew that God lives, I lived by my conscience. And still do as there is no conflict between my conscience and all that I know of God.

 

Is was lifted because of: 1. Political Correctness; or 2. Kimble talked to God. I would guess #1.

 

I'd guess you'd have to have been there to know for sure. Ten to fifteen members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles attended. Today there are about a million blacks, worldwide, who are members of the church.

 

Nope. The earth is no flat. This is quite clear by the mouth of prophets including Joseph Smith. Radiometric is something you should study more before putting foot into mouth. And, the geological facts like sedimentary rock formations, erosion, etc. prove that they were all created within 4500 years and in a great calamity flood.

https://www.icr.org/article/6246 :"Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption is that simple measurements can lead to reliable ages. But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general—and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating...n particular, RATE scientists found that radioisotope decay rates had been accelerated by orders of magnitude in the past and that one or more such acceleration events vastly inflated the apparent age of rocks (i.e., the age derived from the assumption that radioisotope decay has been constant through time). For example, RATE found a high accumulation of helium, a product of radioisotope decay, still trapped inside small crystals.4 If evolutionary ages are accurate, the helium should have leaked into the atmosphere millions of years ago. RATE researchers also found radiohalos and fission tracks, which are microscopic scars in minerals. Such scars could only exist if the parent isotope's decay rate had been dramatically accelerated...Nobody yet knows what (or who) accelerated nuclear decay in the past, just as nobody yet knows what mechanism causes the sun-related decay of silicon-32 or radon-222. But science clearly shows that radioisotope decay rates have not been constant or reliable enough to support the standard geological ages assigned to earth materials."

https://www.icr.org/article/grand-staircase :"The accompanying diagram illustrates the successive layers and their vertical relationship.1 Grand Canyon shows the continent-spanning Tapeats Sandstone, deposited during the first burst of the Flood by dynamic water action. The Redwall Limestone, in which billions of two-foot-long nautiloid fossils were discovered by creationists, prove the deposit could not have been due to gradual processes. Likewise, the Coconino Sandstone is an underwater sand ripple deposit, not a series of desert sand dunes. Zion Canyon places the Navajo Sandstone in its proper context among marine deposits with marine fossils, not as a terrestrial deposit. Bryce Canyon can best be considered a failed lake bed full of ponding Flood waters. It all fits inferences gained from biblical information. The Grand Staircase, shown in this figure, could be considered Exhibit A for the Flood model of geology."

If all you are going to look at is one side of an issue, then you aren't a very good student of any subject. Reminds me of a couple of quotes: "All kids are born geniuses, but are crushed by society." "Everybody's a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." - Einstein. There's more to this world and universe than what you can visually see, hear, feel, touch and so on...

 

People do whatever it takes to hide their sins from God. I get it. And, you have that right. But, it the end, at the judgment seat of God, no more hiding.

 

Regarding this ICR organization - perhaps you can point me to some of their articles debunking radiometric dating in peer reviewed scientific journals/publications?

 

This God that you imagine wishes to judge you.... why do you worship him and not stand up to him? You say he is good. Why?

 

I am happy to hear that your conscience has never conflicted with the communication you think you have received from God thus far. That's very good news to me. The question remains though, what would you do if your conscience did clash with something God commands of you in the future? Would you side with your own conscience or go with God? And if the latter, is there a line where you would turn the other way?

I ask because I see this as the most dangerous part of religion, the belief overriding the conscience of the individual. It has led people to fly planes into buildings, burn "heretics" alive, ostracize their children. The ten commandments, in the Christian case, is half about obedience in one form or another, and the bible has numerous sections declaring obedience trumping morality (Adam&Eve, Abe & Isaac, etc).

 

I get your trepidation regarding religious fanaticism. But compared to garden variety serial killers, murder, rape, etc., one must conclude that maniacal behavior is not exclusive to religious fanaticism. I am a Christian, so I won't be flying planes into towers. My religion teaches forgiveness and that vengeance belongs to God. Since I am not God, I won't be his avenger for anything. But that's me and my religion. I obviously can't speak for others. My religion is about burning away the more reprobate nature from my own heart, mind and soul, inclinations which are at odds with Jesus doctrines of forgiveness, patience, love, faith, chastity, etc., as opposed to imposing my will on others. My religion begins and ends with the personal knowledge that God is real, that he lives, and with the mission and doctrines of Jesus Christ to which I subscribe. Everything before that, like the story of Abraham and Isaac are mysteries to me, a question mark which really has no bearing on what I know and understand to be true. Likewise the stories since, regarding burning heretics alive and so forth. It is so foreign to me that I ascribe it to Satan or evil coopting Christianity....self righteousness running amuck.

 

Have you considered contemplating these moral ideas without religion? You can be forgiving and seek your better nature without believing in the sky demon.

 

I did. So, you are unable to read as well? Either click on the two links I provided or copy them and paste them into your web browser. I keep forgetting we have several in here unable to improve on their technology capabilities. My bad...

 

Stand up to who? The God who organized the entire universe and our earth? Why would any sane person do that? He set the laws and commandments in the pre-earth time period and we accepted them as spirit children of our God. By faith, we find out about this through prophets and apostles, the mouth pieces of our Godhead here on earth. And, when we receive this knowledge of good and evil, we have covenanted to live according to God's laws and commandments, not mankind's. So, by doing so, why would you try to make me break my covenants with God? Are you that cynical and unhappy to have to hurt believers? I'm happy for my God to judge me. I have nothing to fear. Why do you? I know why...

 

In large part, I agree. But I wouldn't refer to God as a "sky demon" anymore than he refers to us as mud bugs. But it doesn't take into account the parts of yourself of which you are unaware, nor the necessity of occasional divine inspiration in the guidance of the fashioning of ones eternal spirit, soul or person. Not to mention ordinances. As I understand it, salvation is about our condition in eternity. Has it ever occurred to you that the better parts of yourself were placed there by God in the beginning. That the better part of you is a part of him, and that he wants more for you. He has a vested interest in us, I believe. That isn't scripture...just my reasoning.

 

Has it occurred to you that we are purely a product of evolution and that what we deem good or bad comes purely from that and our social conditioning? We share ideas of fairness, quid pro quo and so on with our ape and monkey cousins.

 

Well now I know you are trolling. Either that or somehow you do not know what a Peer Reviewed Scientific journal is? I asked for articles published by your claimed source of information in a Peer Reviewed Scientific journal - not articles published on their own web site.

A peer review scientific journal article is published by scientists and subject to critical review by scientists.

You argue that proven science for which a Nobel prize was issued is false because a fairytale with no supporting evidence says so. This is classic science denial taught by a fairy tale based religions.

 

No more interested in us (humans) than say a Covid Virus. It is all survival of the fittest.

And one more comment if I may, going back to your Holly Spirit argument. Why does the Holly Spirit give some many different messages and claims of truth to different people. If the Holly Spirit is giving out the actual truth how come there are so many Christian denominations, sects, and cults? Curious how the revelations of the Holly Spirit so often line up with the indoctrination of parents and society.

 

Oh that is certainly true. Maniacal behaviour isn't even close to exclusive to religious fanatacism. There are plenty of other frameworks in which people become maniacal. And a voice in ones head need not be interpreted as being God's voice.

Some people will follow and obey and commit attrocity, and others will stand against it. That also goes for people who are not maniacs. Some will stand up to despots and rebel. Others will obey and carry out the evil. This goes for the religious and non-religious alike.

The point of bringing it up, is that the Bible so often goes on about obedience, and has so many stories pushing obedience above the individual's sense of right and wrong (as do many religion's texts, as do the texts of many other social movements). So when I encounter a believer who wholly embraces such obedience, I want to know just how far that obedience could go, and if it could produce dangerous results to those of use who are not obedient or who sit outside that person's framework (ie, a non-believer in their particular religion).

Christians have "obeyed God" (thought they were doing so) and done many such horrific things, ranging from the dramatic, such as the crusades, witch trials, killing children to exorcise demons, etc, to the less dramatic but still disturbing, such as ostracizing homosexual children, etc. I can tell you are NOT that sort of Christian, and I'm thankful for that, but the question of your obedience to God overriding your own sense of right and wrong still gives me pause that this could change.

I like that interpretation. I hope that you further don't see that foregiveness from God as making foregiveness or efforts towards ammends from/for the human beings you wrong any less important than I see it for myself in regard to people I wrong. I also wish to apologize to you if any of the above offended you. It is an honest concern about religion and about authoritarianism, and is not meant to be insulting. If I could find a less offensive way to phrase it, I would phrase it that way. But the very nature of it often offends pepole (I don't sense that you are offended, but I want to assure you I'm not your enemy).

That's reassuring for sure.

 

Yes

Why not? Ok, it's obvious why not in that they have so much power, but other than that, why not? Is it bad somehow to use your own moral judgment and to do what you feel is right, even if it conflicts with what somebody else is telling you that you must do?

Who accepted who? Or who accepted what?

Did you mean he accepted us? Or we accepted his commandments?

I didn't ask anybody to create me or sign on for any commandments. Certainly not unjust ones that I find to be immoral.

I am thankful to my parents for creating me and bringing me into the world, but I don't unquestioningly accept whatever they tell me to think and do. And if they abused me or told me to do something bad, I'd definitely stand against them. Would you not? And even where I agree with them, and do as they do, I do it for my own reasons. Is that somehow bad?

You mean people claiming to speak for God. Why doesn't God speak for himself? Why doesn't he make you know what he wants you to know? Why do you need human middlemen, who could get something wrong, or be changing the message by mistake or on purpose in order to control you? Why not go straight to the source and why doesn't the source go strait to you? God wouldn't be restricted in any way regarding communication if he's all powerful as is claimed, right? There would be no need for a pen or a book or a prophet. He could just make you know whatever he wants you to know, make you understand it fully, and then go from there, no?

But why? Why obey a dictator instead of participating in a democracy?

I don't try to make you break anything. I merely ask the question. Is the question threatening? If so, why?

I am neither cynical nor unhappy.

 

Just are going to argue because you lose with the studies I posted. Facts are facts no matter where you find them. Also, the PhD's that write in ICR use and post all their references which include posts they have made to your fake scientific journal scholars who use nothing more than fuzzy words.

 

Nice try but failed. I stand by my words. What's the point or idea of attacking the very things we accepted in the Spirit World prior to coming to the earth? And, why would you tempt God? That's never worked out well for anyone. Those that end up in perdition for all eternity with Satan will still deny their stupid stinkin thinkin.

 

It fascinates me that you think I am "trying" something. You really do think that this is a test for you, eh? That I'm trying to coax you away from your faith? I'm not. That I don't share it and that I question it doesn't mean I'm "trying" to do anything to you. You need not respond at all, and if you do, all I'm asking for is your point of view. I'm not telling you what you must think or do. You've put your imagined God in that role, not me. I'd never want such a role. I'm happy to be in disagreement, but am still curious about our vantage point.

You truly think that you accepted these things before you were born? That as a baby you believed these things? You didn't have to be told them by those around you? Had you been born in Tehran to Muslim parents, you'd still have been a baby Christian?

I can see why it may be hard for you, but its very easy for me, since I don't believe your God exists any more than any of the other imagined Gods. I am as fearful of your God as we both are of Vishnu. We're not, because niether of us think there is any Vishnu.

This still rings of a threatening and fearful nature. Why do you think a creator God would want to rule by threats and fear? Or want to rule by bribes? Or want to rule at all really? I struggle seeing any coherence in it.

 

Yes. Facts are facts and science is science.

 

Or mayhaps you are a dolphin dreaming.

 

I ask this often and rarely does the believer respond. But it would be plausible... if God actually intends the resulting conflict and confusion. Maybe God is more Loki than Jehovah