Q&R! Tough Questions with Paul Reeve

Просмотров 2,2 тыс.

% 62

Some people see a connection between the church’s past restrictive policy toward blacks in the church and the church’s current restrictive policy towards gays in the church, specifically prohibiting gay temple marriage. In what ways are these two issues similar, and in what ways are they different? How can church members reconcile A, the teaching that the prophet won’t ever lead the church astray, with B, the fact that church presidents for over a century taught false doctrine about blacks? How might the scriptural basis of the Lamanites being cursed with a skin of blackness have influenced early church leaders’ thoughts on justifying the initial priesthood and temple restrictions, and what should we make of that curse anyway? And why didn’t God clearly communicate earlier to his prophets that it was his will that all his children would receive the blessings of the priesthood and the temple? In this episode of Church History Matters, we dive into all these questions and more with our special guest, Dr. Paul Reeve, a scholar on race in Latter-day Saint history.
This is the seventh and final episode of our 7-part podcast series on the history of Race and the Priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For a full transcript of this episode, as well as show notes and additional resources, visit our website at doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/podcast-episode/qr-tough-questions-with-paul-reeve/
You can also subscribe to our podcast via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and other platforms, and follow us on popular social media platforms. Visit linktr.ee/churchhistorymatters to connect with us.
Originally published August 15, 2023
DISCLAIMER: While we try very hard to be historically and doctrinally accurate in what we say on this podcast, please remember that all views expressed in this and every episode are our views alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Scripture Central or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Опубликовано:

19 мар 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 34

@miriamdominguez8132 6 дней назад

He aprendido mucho con estos podcast, el evangelio es verdadero y tenemos que aprender de nuestra historia

@traviskeller7086 3 месяца назад

I'm commenting this before I finished the video so forgive me if this is already said. There isn't a strong foundational reason for restricting black people from being sealed in the temple but the day gay marriage is allowed in the temple is the day we fall into apostasy. Eternal marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of starting a family that lasts forever. It is a core doctrine that cannot be changed.

@deweydewey6714 2 месяца назад

The church has started to go into apostasy because of crap like this! Fortunately, it will not have time to go into complete apostasy before Christ comes again! Fools like this are trying hard though! Damn apostate fools!!!

@deweydewey6714 2 месяца назад

There was a strong foundation! You apparently have not read all the books of Abraham and Moses as well as the statement by Joseph Smith that Dr. Reeves and others are trying to sweep under the rug!!!

@califqtva Месяц назад

Please provide evidence for how this is a core doctrine. From what I have studied, it is a repeat of what was done with the priesthood and temple ban. Assumptions and misconceptions. Anyone reading a ban from a scriptural basis is misconstruing historical context. And anyone extrapolating it from the Family Proclamation is reading things it doesn't actually say and is making assumptions. Just as prior to 1978, until we're ready to examine our assumptions and really study what revelation we've truly received on the topic and be open to asking God for what He has to say, we're living in darkness and causing unnecessary pain and suffering to untold numbers of His children.

@justinandrewmccoy 2 дня назад

The thing I’d add to the question about current prophets and social issues (ends around 55:00) I agree that we have to have a relationship with God but we still need to practice religion within the bounds of the current leadership. Before the ban was removed even if well meaning, members couldn’t ordain someone to the priesthood of the church taught that they couldn’t receive the priesthood. We can’t extend our moral compass to official religious practices while we can be kind in our personal interactions with others where we disagree or have different beliefs.

@chrishales8088 2 месяца назад

Is there any record or actions to explain why Joseph F. Smith didn’t use the previous minutes and records to “refresh” his memory on his earlier stance?

@dianneirinaga8995 3 месяца назад

Thank you

@califqtva Месяц назад

I understand the clarification we give now on the priesthood and temple ban being policy not doctrine but I'm not sure I agree that's how it was presented or received at the time. It seems as though the teachings and practices of the time were very much presented as doctrine. It is only in retrospect after careful examination that we call them for what they were, policies. Hence putting doctrine in air quotes.

@grantarnold 3 месяца назад

At 16:50 you say: “So of course God could eventually give a revelation to the 1st Presidency and 12 authorizing gay temple marriage if that’s in His plan…” -I think this statement is way out of bounds. God cannot allow sin in the least degree of allowance and sexual relations outside of a marriage between and man and a woman is a violation of the law of chastity (therefore a sin) - so, ‘no,’ God couldn’t give a revelation to the 1st Presidency and 12 allowing for gay marriage. I don’t say this to be mean or unkind. But we need to be honest with people. “… Now the work of justice [can] not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God” Alma 42:13

@jamessimpson8832 3 месяца назад

Aaaagreed!

@davidmoore1248 3 месяца назад

I do not think his point is that God can allow sin. My take away is the understanding that God defines sin. Should God reveal something that opens our understanding into His will that is different than we were commanded before, He can do that. Whatever the topic may be.

@grantarnold 3 месяца назад

⁠@@davidmoore1248 I appreciate your input but, if I understand what you’re saying, I must respectfully disagree. Specifically, if their point is that “God defines sin,” I disagree. Certain laws are eternal, unalterable, and immutable. President John Taylor said: “God is unchangeable, so are also his laws … It would be impossible for Him to violate law, because in so doing He would strike at His own dignity, power, principles, glory, exaltation and existence.” The Law of Chasity is one of these unchangeable laws. Therefore, God will never (and could never) command the church leadership to alter it.

@davidmoore1248 3 месяца назад

@@grantarnold Thank you for your measured response. Part of my understanding of God is that I don't know all that He knows; so, I try to leave room for Him to reveal more understanding. While I do not claim this is of the same magnitude, there was a time when drinking wine was not sin. Now it is. We know the law of consecration exists and has been required in the past, but we are not required to live it now. Other examples of changing requirements exist. I do not know what God will reveal in the future, and I am not advocating for any changes to the requirements of the law of chastity. My point is only that God can and will do things in the future that seem incomprehensible now. I hope your Sunday has been amazing, and may you have a blessed Easter week as we celebrate the eternal sacrifice and victory of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

@grantarnold 3 месяца назад

⁠@@davidmoore1248Thanks David; I did have a great sabbath (hope the same for you). Great example of the point you’re making. Specifically, I think what you’re saying is that God can prohibit something that was once not prohibited (and then it becomes “sin” to those who’ve covenanted to keep God’s commandments). As you pointed out, the Word of Wisdom is a great example of this. The eternal law is to take good care of your body - and God can provide updates and curtailments to get us more in line with His will. I hear you also saying that God can reduce a requirement (e.g. Law of Consecration). Again, I understand your point (although many might say the law of consecration is still in effect, only implemented differently compared to the early days of the church). My point is simply that SOME (not all) laws are unchangeable. Laws forbidding adultery (not to be confused with God-commanded polygamy, etc) and fornication are laws that don’t change. That is, God will never command his leaders to tell everyone that it’s ok to have extramarital relations. Further, God will never change His definition of “marriage” (i.e. a biological male and biological female union). At the end of the day, we’re free to disagree on that point though - which may be where we’re at.

@jerry_phillips Месяц назад

As far as the church admitting the mistake, one, which mistake are we referring to? Is it Brigham Young’s mistake in following a common belief of his era? If so, is it another’s responsibility to apologize for his mistake? Is it John Tayler’s mistake for not researching it enough to see that Joseph Smith didn’t hold that position? Is it Joseph F Smith’s mistake for mis-remembering history? Is it David O McKay’s administration’s mistake for not overturning the ban when they could find no scriptural or historical reason for it? The point is we’re all responsible for our own mistakes and not someone else’s. Also, we’re still simply concluding that it was a mistake. That I could understand the 1978 revelation didn’t include a rebuke, it only revealed that all worthy males are entitled to the priesthood and all worthy are entitled to temple ordinances.

@GeorgeDemetz Месяц назад

Study Abraham chapter one, and READ my statement from Joseph Smith!!!

@GeorgeDemetz Месяц назад

Joseph Smirh himself stated this in confirmation of Gods true revelations as recorded in the books if Abraham and Moses: "The curse is not yet taken off the sons if Csnssn, neither will it be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come." Now,, will you continue to harden your spostate heartd snd deny the truth that God has revealed?!?!?!?

@RyanMercer 3 месяца назад

☺

@janicholes 3 месяца назад

What a wonderful series thank you so much. The conclusions about the need for unity in the councils of the church reminded me of the same conclusion that Heber J Grant came to regarding succession in the presidency. (Walker, Ronald W. (2004) "Grant's Watershed: Succession in the Presidency, 1887-1889," BYU Studies Quarterly: Vol. 43 : Iss. 1 , Article 13.) As I grew in my calling as Stake president, I came to realize that we were probably better off being unified around an inferior policy than to be divided about a superior one.

@elizabethpeterson9914 3 месяца назад

This has been a great series! This is probably the issue I've had the most problems with in my understanding of church history excepting perhaps the Adam God theory, which I hope you will tackle in the future. I love the way you've looked at all sides of the question and put forth honest possibilities, still allowing us to come to our own conclusions. Often in my study I think I could learn more if I could learn to ask the right questions. I think Scott has a great talent for asking the right questions.

@ashlyncrane8992 3 месяца назад

God loves you

@rachaelgreer8768 26 дней назад

It's interesting to me that the idiom "black skin" is also found in the Old Testament. Job 30:30 and Lamentations 5:10 both mention it, and it is clear to me that it is metaphorical when I read those verses. Nephi also happened to live in OT times.

@GeorgeDemetz 2 месяца назад

Open and honest?!? If you were honest,why in the hell dont you talk about the statement I gave you from Joseph Smith, or that first presidency statement, or the very scriptures themselves in the books of Abraham and Moses?!?!?!?

@Commenter2121 2 месяца назад

Awesome video, every member needs to read Paul’s book and share the information with others. I personally believe that the 1890 and 1978 “revelations” were both more like calculated decisions amid external pressure but either way, I’m glad they turned us from false traditions.

@warrengoing8985 Месяц назад

What a silly faithless debate, detracting from Gods laws with relation to Gays and Gay marriage. Do you not believe in God and Christs Prophets leading the church. You are complicating the Lords doctrine, the Saviors doctrine is simple, you are undermining the church with your lack of faith and and unwise questions

@rosamgma17gmail 3 месяца назад

Thank you for bringing up light, knowledge and openness to all these difficult issues. Your podcasts are very much needed. Looking forward to the next series!