DiscussMormonism.com

I post this in Celestial in hopes that it will be honest and civil.

Makelan, in another thread concerning the Priesthood ban, you posted that Spencer Kimball suggested that the ban might have been a mistake.

What relevance is Spencer Kimball's comment? As I understand it, Kimball was just expressing his personal opinion.

Can an individual Apostle, establish Official Church positions via expression of opinion?

IF, at the time of Kimball mistake remark, the current position of the First presidency was that the ban was of God, does Kimball's statement then override the position of the Church?

Why bring up Kimball's personal opinion when defending Official Church positions?

Additionally, does BRM speaking to CES establish Church Doctrine?

Bump....

3sheets2thewind wrote:I post this in Celestial in hopes that it will be honest and civil.

Makelan, in another thread concerning the Priesthood ban, you posted that Spencer Kimball suggested that the ban might have been a mistake.

What relevance is Spencer Kimball's comment? As I understand it, Kimball was just expressing his personal opinion.

Can an individual Apostle, establish Official Church positions via expression of opinion?

IF, at the time of Kimball mistake remark, the current position of the First presidency was that the ban was of God, does Kimball's statement then override the position of the Church?

Why bring up Kimball's personal opinion when defending Official Church positions?

Additionally, does BRM speaking to CES establish Church Doctrine?

I think you bring up a very good point about the Church doctrine in general. BY stated that when he spoke over the pulpit it was doctrine though I doubt that anyone believes that today. Does it have to be in the standard works to be doctrine? Are doctrine and commandments tied together? Females wearing just one ear ring doctrine? probably not. Is it a commandment, counsel, advice, or ramblings of an old man? Sorry I don’t mean to jack the thread

son of Ishmael wrote:

3sheets2thewind wrote:I post this in Celestial in hopes that it will be honest and civil.

Makelan, in another thread concerning the Priesthood ban, you posted that Spencer Kimball suggested that the ban might have been a mistake.

What relevance is Spencer Kimball's comment? As I understand it, Kimball was just expressing his personal opinion.

Can an individual Apostle, establish Official Church positions via expression of opinion?

IF, at the time of Kimball mistake remark, the current position of the First presidency was that the ban was of God, does Kimball's statement then override the position of the Church?

Why bring up Kimball's personal opinion when defending Official Church positions?

Additionally, does BRM speaking to CES establish Church Doctrine?

I think you bring up a very good point about the Church doctrine in general. BY stated that when he spoke over the pulpit it was doctrine though I doubt that anyone believes that today. Does it have to be in the standard works to be doctrine? Are doctrine and commandments tied together? Females wearing just one ear ring doctrine? probably not. Is it a commandment, counsel, advice, or ramblings of an old man? Sorry I don’t mean to jack the thread

Kimball's own revelation basically says it was from God and it is canonized. There really is no way to get around this one. I am curious if someone could quote what Kimball said about it

Regardless of the source, the people of fair will not addressed what relevance a private statement to a private person has any bearing on Official positions of the Church.

One would be hard pressed to find a person of FAIR which would claim that President Hinckleys interview with Wallace and King established Official positions of the Church.

The silence of the defenders very much establishes that they know and grudgingly accept that their bringing up Kimbal's private statement is worthless in defending a position of the Church

bump

Maklelan,

This thread is almost a year old and you have deliberately not responded.

Due to your silence, it is entirely reasonable to state that you know the Spencer Kimball quote is worthless in a discussion on Blacks and the Priesthood.

Your silence is admission that the Kimball statement - allegedly made in private - has no bearing on a discussion of Blacks and the Priesthood.

Also, your silent admission, hopefully means that for the sake of your own integrity you will not use private statements to establish positions of the Church.

The use of kimball's private statement is clearly employing misdirection.

I think the original source was most likely the book Kimball's son wrote on the history of the ban and its revocation. I forget the name, but it is available online in pdf form. I'll find it if there is a request to do so.

bump