DiscussMormonism.com

In Mark 11 and Luke 20 the pharisees asked Jesus about His authority. Jesus turned the question on them by asking, "John's authority, was it of men or God?" The pharisees, who didn't believe in John, but feared the people who did, replied, "We don't know." It seems a similar question could be asked the LDS church today, "The priesthood ban from 1850-1978, was it from God, or men." What is the reply?

Realizing there are those who believe the prophet could never make a mistake, I think it's pretty clear it was of men. The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible, but the Catholics don’t believe it. The LDS Church teaches that the prophet is fallible, but the Mormons don’t believe it.

It's not unreasonable to consider the ban to have been from God. There have been several examples of God providing milk before meat. Many teachings from Old Testament have been clarified with the New Testament, etc.

subgenius wrote:It's not unreasonable to consider the ban to have been from God. There have been several examples of God providing milk before meat. Many teachings from Old Testament have been clarified with the New Testament, etc.

Thanks for the responses. I think it's not unreasonable to consider the ban to be of man. There have been examples of prophets in the past (Old Testament, New Testament) making mistakes. Elder Uctdorf spoke of mistakes being made (October 2013 conference) in our era. We are taught that God will yet reveal many important things. It is reasonable to believe we don't know where the ban came from. It is reasonable to believe that church leaders don't want to offend those who believe the ban is from God, or those who believe the ban came from man. I think it's reasonable to consider that ALL men make mistakes. And it is reasonable when we consider our own faults, to be forgiving of others.

deacon blues wrote:In Mark 11 and Luke 20 the pharisees asked Jesus about His authority. Jesus turned the question on them by asking, "John's authority, was it of men or God?" The pharisees, who didn't believe in John, but feared the people who did, replied, "We don't know." It seems a similar question could be asked the LDS church today, "The priesthood ban from 1850-1978, was it from God, or men." What is the reply?

From men.

maklelan wrote:

deacon blues wrote:In Mark 11 and Luke 20 the pharisees asked Jesus about His authority. Jesus turned the question on them by asking, "John's authority, was it of men or God?" The pharisees, who didn't believe in John, but feared the people who did, replied, "We don't know." It seems a similar question could be asked the LDS church today, "The priesthood ban from 1850-1978, was it from God, or men." What is the reply?

From men.

Did You answer to Jesus' question or to the priesthood ban one?

Or both?

subgenius wrote:It's not unreasonable to consider the ban to have been from God. There have been several examples of God providing milk before meat. Many teachings from Old Testament have been clarified with the New Testament, etc.

But this ban was post New Testament. It is only reasonable if you wish to project racism onto God. You would have to delve deeply into the Pharisaical belief of a sole chosen people to justify that and the ancient Pharisee's made their claim on tribal rather than racial lineage. Jesus brought us a new law and it did not come with racial purity qualifications. His message was for all.

"God is no respector of persons" because God is love and objective truth.
If an African, Englishman, Asian and Polynesian (of the same weight) bungee jumped, they'd fall the same.

Even my TBM friend acknowledges that prophets screwed up in denying priesthood, however I couldn't get him to see that Jesus WAS MIDDLE EASTERN and even hid in Africa (where Africans live).

Face of typical Jewish man during time of Jesus, according to Forensic Archeologists:

Amore wrote: typical Jewish man during time of Jesus

Not the blond beast of Nietzsche? You gobsmacked me...