“Some” like to point ham, having the blood that cannot receive the priesthood. Those some were prophets and sears and revelator of God. Prophets and sears and revelators aren’t influenced by culture according to your worldview.

Yes, one has to admit that the Book of Moses says the "seed of Cain were black" (Moses 7:22) "and had not place among them." And the First Presidency and Apostles issued "The Negro a Proclamation to the World The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles" stated "The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy *but of direct commandment from the* Lord, on which is founded *the doctrine of the Church* from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time." Did you SEE what it said " *the doctrine of the Church* " not mere policy. And a "Direct commandment from the Lord" This doctrine WAS CHANGED. And it's a good thing it was. It was discrimination against people for a characteristic of themselves that they could not change. I also want the discrimination against Gay people changed. There is not any good in being cruel to people for something that is a characteristic of themselves that they cannot change. Being cruel helps no one. It only harms. If one person wishes to marry one other person and be committed in marriage to each other, then I think we should accept them. It's what our Heavenly Father would want us to do.

Yes, one has to admit that the Book of Moses says the "seed of Cain were black" (Moses 7:22) "and had not place among them." And the First Presidency and Apostles issued "The Ne gro a Proclamation to the World The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles" stated "The attitude of the Church with reference to Ne- groes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of *direct commandment from the* Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Ne-groes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time." Did you SEE what it said? It was *the doctrine of the Church* not mere policy. And a "Direct commandment from the Lord" This doctrine WAS CHANGED. And it's a good thing it was changed. It was discrimination against people for a characteristic of themselves that they could not change. I also want the discrimination against Gay people changed. The current policy does no good. It is simply cruel to people for something that is a characteristic of themselves that they cannot change. Being cruel helps no one. It only harms. If one person wishes to marry one other person and be committed in marriage to each other, then I think we should accept them. It's what our Heavenly Father would want us to do.

@@Decision_Justice Jacob, surely has a caveat or method of reasoning that allows him to dismiss the words of the prophets you shared here. Now I’d like to see him apply those methods to a current prophets words to justify contradicting them in any way. Because some of us acknowledge the truth we’re able to say the prophet today may be wrong and may get it right in the future.

​@napaljarrinappaljarri5175 kids of gay couples can't get married and must disavow their parents behavior, to oh, we did that out of love and now they can get baptized again, after telling us it was a revelation to Monson.

Cringe. They should expect real disciples of christ to apply their god given intellect and experience to know that such might happen in the future.

Exactly. In many ways it doesn’t feel like the same church it was 20 years ago. The Church is promoting “LGBTQIA++” to youth, endorsing same-sex marriage laws, going out of its way to hire and appoint “LGBTQIA++” activists to influential positions and is increasingly run by a management class that wants to bring the Church further in compliance with the “DEI” paradigm. And even if the Church doesn’t, for now, fully endorse same-sex “marriage,” what it is already doing is bad enough. The current trends should be halted corrected.

Really smart comment

Exactly. Your concerns are spot on. In 2022 the Church came out in support of legal “same-sex marriage” recognition. I’m shocked that many people are still talking about the shift as if it’s merely a possibility or hypothetical. The transformation is well underway. There could be rainbow flags hanging from Temple Square and drag queen story hour events at BYU and some people would still say, “the Church is still holding firm and hasn’t rescinded the Family Proclamation.” In so many ways already the Church is, in effect, affirming “LGBTQIA++.” Many might be surprised to learn that people like Emily Bell Freeman have scheduled and encouraged more “LGBTQIA++” speakers to promote that ideology at church youth events. The LDS Living editor has bragged about how she works “LGBTQIA++” messages in official publications whenever she can. And these are the people who are getting promoted. There is a management class in the Church that is pushing this stuff and successfully nudging top leadership further and further towards compliance with the “LGBTQIA++” ideology. The Family Proclamation is no obstacle for them; they’ve already argued that the proclamation doesn’t prohibit homosexuaI activity at all and only covers “procreative” relations. The wording can be easily re-interpreted and the overall message reframed. What was supposed to be an impenetrable guard against all this stuff is increasingly held up as support for it.

​@@Student____2025__1Superbly worded comment.

he can't get married in the temple because he is not allowed to go to the Temple. that was part of his agreement in order to get baptized.

You don’t have prophets, just kwaku

BY said they would get the priesthood UNTIL the rest of the races got the chance. That hasn’t happened yet, don’t be dishonest and quote him completely, not just the parts that make you feel good.

They already are allowing it with that gay mascot and his husband in Utah county. I think it's time to find another sect that hasn't gone woke.

which races haven't exactly. I know arab, indian, native american, Jewish, hispanic and asian members who had the priesthood pre 1978. I think this would qualify Brigham's statement right unless you can prove otherwise the statement still stands. Unless there is some new race I haven't heard of? @@dr33776

@dr33776 what race didn't have a chance to receive the Gospel before 1978? Note the difference between "race" and "country"

Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Telling someone they have to choose between having the blessings of rhe gospel or the blessing of being married to someone they are attracted to is harmful. Gays are treated like second class members. Celebacy or a mixed orientation marriage are the 2 options. Both are extremely harmful. It's wrong.

​@@darrencollinwood142for context, im assuming that "blessing of being married to someone they are attracted to" is referring to same sex marriage? If that is the context, and I believe the gospel says that is not the correct manner of marriage ordained by God, are you saying that God blesses sinful acts the same as he blesses those that follow the gospel, the commandments, and keep covenants?

Perverting the natural intimacies of the human body, seeking for another way and expecting God to accept it is sin. Cain fell prey to this deception that he could offer a sacrifice in righteousness contrary to Gods commandment. We don’t get to change or recreate the laws of God but we do get to choose to follow them.

Working in the mental health field, I feel your pain. I work with many people in the LGBTQ community, and they indeed have struggles that are incredibly difficult and unique to their community. However, I think it's important to acknowledge that objective reality exists. Do you agree? If not, then the next paragraph isn't really relevant, and you can skip to the end. God tells us that sex outside of marriage is a sin. He also tells us that homosexual activity is a sin. Is God merely being mean to His children by declaring these things? Does he have a purpose behind His commandments? Are you asking God to change His mind on what is right and wrong? Or do you believe we misunderstand what He has taught us concerning these things? What are commandments? What are covenants? Do either serve a purpose, or are they meant to make those who don't keep them feel bad? I don't think God's commandments are meant to hurt people, even if it sometimes seems like it from a mortal perspective. From my understanding of the Restored Gospel, both commandments and covenants are to bless our lives, bring out our eternal potential, and if we so choose, to be worthy of all that God has and is (since He wants us to be like Him). Why are keeping these commandments and covenants necessary to achieve these things? I honestly don't know, but I trust that He does, and I do my best to be obedient. I don't mean to call you out or anything, I just want to understand where you are coming from. Also, I have friends and loved ones who practice celibacy and mixed orientation marriages, and they claim to be very happy. I also know others who are miserable. I don't have any data to back up my anecdotal experience, but here is a video that talks about statistics on LGBTQ success in the Church: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bNB-hbhhxJyZlmw.html @@darrencollinwood142

@@darrencollinwood142 who knows what's best for man? God or man? Whose words should we abide by? God or man? Whose law is supreme? God or man?

Adam God makes sense to me if Adam is indeed Michael. At the creation of the world we have Michael, Jehovah and Elohim. So which one is really the almighty god who rules over us? I think its Michael since this is supported in some bible passages as well as restoration prophets. And if Michael did take on the title of Adam to seed the earth, then Adam is God. I'm not 100% on this but its my current understanding.

@@anonymouslife3777how can a god sin (or transgress) and become mortal? God is the same through all eternity, Adam god was a false doctrine that is not sustained biblically.

​@@anonymouslife3777 in Hebrew Elohim is a title, not a proper name. Elohim: God, god (s), goddess(es), angelic messengers, human rulers, human judges. In scripture whenever God (Elohim OT/Theos NT) is used we need to in context understand which definition to use. I'm not sure in the BOM, but if you were to always assume Elohim was the name of some one, it would get quite confusing.... And your understanding of the Bible would be inaccurate. I'm wondering if Joseph Smith didn't understand Hebrew and translated Elohim incorrectly, accidentally changing the premise of the Bible. And possibly that's why there is so much difference between a Mormon and a biblical Christian.... We know that Egyptologists agree he didn't translate the book of Abraham correctly either, Facsimile 1 specifically.

LDS Church continues to increasingly embrace “LGBTQIA++” ideology. Is that any better?

The Church leadership today has embraced the mainline Protestant model, though no one seems to have caught onto the fact that membership in those churches has been decimated in the last few decades. Hasn't worked out well for them, so I'm not sure why they think it's a good idea to try it again.

@@davidholley1702 The Church is run by and influenced by a management class that totally supports the ideology and constantly advises and nudges leaders to move in this direction.

That's not the reason many Mainline Protestant denominations have affirmed gay marriage and ordained gay clergy. Is it too hard to believe that they've done it because they believed it was the right thing to do even knowing that it would split the denominations.

@@craigcline5717 why wasn’t it the “right thing to do” for the last 5,000 years? Did God suddenly change His mind after hearing all the arguments made by people who practice sodomy? Or does God owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology?

Playing devils advocate.

Yes.

❤

They were never prophets to begin with.

@@dr33776 exactly… question is when will the delusional tbms like Hansen realize that??

You obviously either did not watch the whole video or you misunderstood it and you never heard that prophets are men...fallible. There is only ONE who was perfect...take a guess who that man was.

@@johnnylibtard5764 ok… so why would anyone follow a fallen prophet?

​@@johnnylibtard5764you know how stupid you sound 😂

There are many things we do not know or understand. And we must be careful in making theories of why.

@@igoldenknight2169 Agreed, speculation can lead to false doctrine to which the Priesthood ban was, and that lingered for quite some time

Maybe it was the will of God. We don't know. At times, God has broken his own rules for his purposes.

​@igoldenknight2169 I know exactly why and don't have to theorize. Joseph Smith was the only LDS "prophet" who was actually a prophet in the biblical sense, IF you believe his claims about seeing God, Jesus Christ, and angels. Because NO OTHER LDS "prophet" has ever claimed to have experienced that. In fact Oaks came out and said he knows of no recent president or apostle who's had that kind of spiritual experience when he visited Bellvue WA, January 23rd, 2016. I believe Heber J. Grant said the same. So, it seems LDS leadership have no more special connection with God than anyone else. This would explain the waivering and changing doctrines over the years. But those outside the church already knew this. Only now are most people within the church figuring it out.

Please look at Church History. The Prophets and Apostles prayed for such a revelation for decades.

Well the Israelites once thought the Lord would never have any other "chosen" people but them. Centuries later, they're on the back burner while the 'Gentiles' -with a priesthood nearly all of the Israelites did not have - carry the gospel to the world, AND build temples galore. Quite a switcheroo when you think about it.....at least it would be from their point of view. And when it comes to revelation, given that everything is not revealed yet, you have this problem of what to call 'truth'. The early Saints [Nauvoo] thought the 2nd coming was probably going to be in their lifetime, and that Nauvoo would be the great gathering place of Zion in the last days. Oops. Turned out it was just another stop along the way of fleeing persecution. No sooner did they settle the Salt Lake valley - in order to escape the relentless persecution...which incidentally continued pretty much uninterrupted even after they got settled in Utah....than Brigham Young talked about how welcome non-Mormon's were to settle in the Valley with them, and bring their wild & worldly influence upon the upcoming LDS generation. And along came Hymns like "Shall the youth of Zion Falter?" and "Think not when you gather to Zion [that all your trials are over]" And of course many women in polygamous marriages were eventually made "widows" when polygamy was at last outlawed and condemned by the leadership. I guess not much stays put, or "status quo" for long, especially in a church of revelation. The problem is that revelations rarely come with advanced warning of yet subsequent revelations, so they appear to say "OK this is IT - this is THE revelation for all future Saints." rather than "I, the Lord, say, for the time being...."

Great comment! It is strange that before when people where in deep sin they would leave the church and just come back when they were ready because of the guilt but today they try to stay and break the mold of the church and change it. This is getting really difficult on a local level. My uncle after many years decided to to go back to church. He attend sacrament and right in front of him was two gay men being very affectionate. Rubbing and tickling each others backs and giving little kisses during the sacrament. He couldn’t believe that people would do that during a holy ordinance he hasn’t come back to church again. This was in San Diego.

Can’t just you worship god on your own without intermediaries? It’s pretty clear the priesthood restoration is a fabrication, therefore your covenants in the Mormon church have no more authority than a catholic or Protestant baptism.

@@dr33776 The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution 👍. You do you boss and I do me. We can live in peace.

​@@dr33776No, because we go to church to renew our covenants (baptism, etc) by partaking of the emblems of the atonement. The Sacrament.

@@dannyrocket77 they are only valid if you have authority from god, if not you are just “playing church” as bro Wilcox said. If you do your research you would learn that Joseph and Oliver invented the whole priesthood restoration years after the founding of the church.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around that.

Because he's marrying each woman individually at a time (making each covenant one at a time), not marrying the entire collective simultaneously (which also means the women are not married to each other, but only to the man)

@@nasquamastudios Right. Some of the women were also married and sealed to other men (one at a time, of course). Emma was the 22nd woman Joseph was sealed to. I find that strange. Was it because his other marriages were done in secret? Were they affairs? Some evidence suggests that. Personally, I think polygamy was the only way to retroactively justify his sleeping around. There is still eternal polygamy though. I think because there is no way to reverse it and make it make sense.

@@mantalkwithbrycebauer670 ok

Exactly. Thinking about all the changes that have been implemented: race and the priesthood (the video admits this was a “false doctrine, which is a HUGE red flag), polygamy (John Taylor taught that polygamy would never be done away with), Word of Wisdom (originally wasn’t even a commandment, more advisement) as Joseph Smith allowed for beer and wine to be consumed, Brigham Young owned distilleries in Utah, and it didn’t seem to be till prohibition that it became a “commandment,” temple ordinances (wasn’t till about the 1950s-60s that the emphasis to go to the temple often came about, usually finance or twice during your life) and along the same lines, how sealings were done (men sealed to men, law of adoption, dynastic sealings), not to mention the original direction to not change how temple ordinances are done, only for them to be significantly different in 2024 vs pre 1990 vs pre 1900, etc, blood atonement (thank goodness that’s been done away with), the original authority and responsibility of the apostles in Joseph Smiths time vs now (as well as the authority of original church patriarchs), the original trinitarian view of the godhead in the early 1830s vs the change to the three personages later that decade, and the list goes on. If the church was really “restored” as I was told was the case, why is it constantly changing? Russel Nelson now claims that the restoration is only in the beginning, so which is it?? I’m asking sincerely as my studies into church history plainly show significant changes throughout the church’s history.

We passed that point about three years ago when the "prophet" told us to be good global citizens and to get the clotshot.

100 percent agree. The Respect for Marriage Act was the most anti-family, anti-traditional religion law ever passed in our nation's history and was publicly supported by none other than our "inspired leaders." One cannot publicly support something so evil and remain in God's good graces. Incomprehensible and Satanic to say the least.. No longer do our leaders have our backs if we live out the doctrines noted in the Family Proclamation. And no longer am I certain that they won't cave to societal pressure on this issue. Never thought the brethren would house themselves in the great and spacious building. But here we are.

Prophets have authority. When you stack that collective witness of people that have authority together, you are very unlikely to have error. Without authority, no matter how large the witness, you are far more likely to have error

@@cameronvantassell9483 so your team good and other Christians team bad?

@@dr33776 What's the difference between "police officers who have the authority to write tickets" and "Karens who are offended"? Serious question: Do you understand and know what "authority" means? This is NOT a "my team" versus "your team" argument. If you think it is, you're misunderstanding. This is an argument of "who has the authority" and "who doesn't have authority". That's it. That's the difference. Cops can write you a ticket. Karens cannot.

@@harmonillustration I joined the church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter, and John doing so …[A]s to the story of John, the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver on the day they were baptized; I never heard of it in the church for years, altho I carefully noticed things that were said. William McLellin original lds apostle Seems like Joseph and Oliver were the Karens

@dr33776 your bringing up an example of someone involved with the Missouri mobs as your "proof". Lol your credibility just went to 0

Will gay marriage be your shelf breaker??

If even one of the two are admittedly practicing anything gay and still allowed temple marriage then yes that would mean that the church has fallen into apostasy and I would no longer be a part of it. I do know that my Father in Heaven would then guide me to the truth.@@jamestrek2570

Unless Jesus Christ himself starts to accept it. Maybe gay marriage is the 2nd level of the Celestial Kingdom which we currently know nothing about, or maybe gays will be the Angels in the Celestial Kingdom since they do reject marriage (heteo marriage and marriage covenants)

Let me explain the gay people to you. There are many, many people who have died and stay in the spirit world where Satan dwells, billions of them. Some of them attach themselves to people still alive, these spirits are what are called unclean spirits. They still have the desire to partake of the things on earth that they did in life and if a male unclean spirit attaches to a female live person that female will start to be influenced by him, males want to sleep with females so the female live person has these feelings come up thinking in today's modern world they are gay. Not all people, some are able to withstand the influences and seek proper help from the Lord and his servants. This also explains why some people under hypnosis say things like all the past lives they have lived when in reality it is an unclean spirit attached to them who has attached him or herself to many other people in the past, several lifetimes. There is a good book about a therapist who is retired who figured out how to help people like these and she says she was always able to help every person who came to her and asked for same sex attraction help. The book is called The Unquiet Dead. by Edith Fiore. This makes a lot of sense to me and explains a lot even though there may be other issues we are not yet aware of. The twelve have educated us and told us that male and female spirits and gender have been eternal and are eternal and there is no gender morphing in the kingdom of God, so NO there is no gay marriage in any of the Celestial Kingdoms and there is no marriage in the telestial or terrestial kingdoms either. These are laws that are eternal. No one who thinks they are gay is under condemnation as long as they don't practice it in life. We all know what temptation is and we all fight it all the time. As the spirit prison fills up more and more there will be more and more spirits attaching themselves to the living until the Savior returns again. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “All human beings-male and female-are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Liahona, Oct. 2004, 49; Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). @@Charlie-xu4zh

Or… it would mean they adopted false doctrine which God can correct.

When everything is built upon a lie you have to twist into knots to make it all make sense. That’s why his logic is terrible.

My biggest issue is that the "collective witness" model disqualifies itself as doctrine. Where did every member of the Q15 endorse this model as true?

@@kclem7 another question Jacob needs to respond to about this “collective witness model” is what’s the difference between it and the other Christian creeds in the early church? Why are their collective statements of faith less valuable than the Q15 voting under closed doors?

No, it is not just you.

@@extropistamy Then why are so many people leaving wards?

@jdw24 I know when something is junk philosophy, and this IS some of the worst garbage I’ve ever heard.

“This doesn’t make sense. Many apostles during the time of Joseph Smith disagreed with the doctrine of polygamy. Does this make Joseph Smith wrong about polygamy and a lier to say God commanded it? According to you it does. If it did with Brigham Young with the Adam god doctrine, then using this version of epistemology means Joseph was also wrong.” - me from last video

Jesus had a lot of haters too, so did Joseph Smith… Haters hate the truth , they take it very hard…. They demand love and acceptance and tolerance, until you disagree with them. they hate it even more when you give them logic and reason.

well yeah were gonna hate/call him out on his BS. @ 2:57 it wasnt doctrine @ 6:10 it was? Its too bad the church has put Jacob in the position of defending their past racism instead of just owning up to it themselves. Cowards.

@@jessea2871 The church has not put Jacob in any position. Clearly the views of the world (the science of the time) influenced church leaders. Clearly racist based upon todays standards.. How do you want them to own it ? They admitted it was wrong, it was changed back to how it was in JS time . African members are not impressed with you being offended on their behalf, they are accepting the gospel in great numbers,. White liberals are offended on their behalf doesnt make you more righteous.

You aren’t looking wide enough. You’re just showing collective with 100 years theory. You should probably listen to what he actually says before commenting was below scope

I appreciate the critiques you put forward! The CWM may not be a perfect way to describe how doctrine and revelation work, but if I may, I think you might be misunderstanding what Jacob is describing in the CWM. To your point about all leaders generally agreeing on doctrine, I would refer you back to any of the many graphics Jacob displayed with all of the prophets from Adam to Russell M. Nelson being depicted by stick figures. The claim isn't that all the leaders of a certain time period never believed and taught incorrect doctrine. This is obviously the case, as with leaders like John Taylor on plural marriage, or Bruce R. McConkie on the priesthood ban, etc. However, what I think Jacob is describing with his CWM is that one needs to compare the views of each prophet/leader in the church to all the others and find what appears to be the most consistent throughout the ages. In the stick figure graphic, this is represented by the vast majority of figures across the ages agreeing on certain doctrines, even if a few within the many figures taught something different. And those few can even include all the church leaders from a certain time period. Jacob seems to say that we should trust the word of the many witnesses rather than the word of the few. The example of Peter and the change in policy surrounding preaching the gospel to the gentiles teaches us something important about doctrine and revelation. Did Peter's revelation contradict doctrine taught consistently over the millennia, or did it actually confirm said doctrine in defiance of current practice and understanding of doctrinal truth? From my understanding of the old and new testaments, the former appears to be correct. In the grand scheme of things, the priesthood ban was a short blip of several generations of leaders believing and teaching something that was eventually corrected, due to not being supported by an overwhelming consensus of the collective witness of God's prophets throughout time. Plural marriage is a slightly different story. The doctrine has never been renounced or denied, it's just not authorized for practice at this time in history. However, each of these examples can be viewed as one or two of the stick figures in the long line of prophets teaching outliers rather than consistent truths. A simple example might go like this: A certain antibiotic is being tested for effectiveness in killing a certain strain of bacteria. In 98% of the tests, the antibiotic successfully killed the targeted bacteria. In the other 2% of tests, the bacteria appeared to grow and flourish rather than be killed off. In medicine, a 98% success rate is considered statistically significant, and accepted as the general fact of the matter. In fact, what usually happens is that the 2% of tests gets reviewed and they discover errors in methodology that prevented the test from being accurately carried out. I think that what Jacob is describing in the CWM is something like this. We are safer to rely on the general consensus than to adopt the outliers as the norm. Will this prevent any errors from occurring? Probably not, but it appears to be a pretty decent method for distinguishing eternal truth from accepted opinion. Does any of this make sense? Can you tell what field I work in? haha!

@@Beastlango Your ad hominem attack is pathetic. I have listened but disagree. And I chose not to cover all of the points in one comment, but only if brought up in a discussion. Did that ever enter your head? Your inability to engage in a conversation without ad hominem makes me feel sorry for your children, spouse, friends and coworkers, because if they reach a different conclusion, you won’t be able to focus on the substance. Why not to look at the consensus within current prophets? The scope adjustment is arbitrary. There are plenty of ways in which the teachings of the current lds leaders are different from the Bible and the rest of the Christianity, like being saved only by grace, for example. The church is argument is that there is continuing revelation that reveals the error of the Bible. That is another reason why collective witness mode fails. There exist substantial differences between teachings as we know them from the Bible, and what the modern prophets and apostle say. For example, one could argue that most of the LDS teachings is theologically inconsistent with the New Testament, because Christ told he would build his church on Peter, not that it would be built, then destroyed, and he (Christ) would have to rebuild it again on JS, with Peter having to participate in that rebuilding. Additionally, the collective witness model will have you reject everything that is not a consensus among prophets, but if you take long enough scope, say 100s or thousands of years there may have been times when the things that are not in the general, consensus were still nevertheless, true and accurate. You have to look at each individual and analyze it, not discarded because it’s different from what others are saying.

@@reaniegane ironically the only person doing ad hominem here is you. Aka way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. I just pointed out you are looking at the picture wrong to help you see that your argument isn’t valid against what Jacob actually says. It would only make sense you didn’t watch it if you don’t use a full scope of what he said and just make a straw-man instead, which is what you did. It’s real funny seeing people getting butt hurt over their own made up perceived wrongs that they repot comments to get them erased then go off an a meaningless rant.

@Beastlango no, not ironically, you started it by saying that maybe I need to pay attention first before commenting, suggesting that that is what I have done. No consideration was given to the limit of space, or that I disagreed with that point. Do you see how that is Ed hominem? I responded in kind, and my response was made appropriate by you starting it. If you disagree, speak to facts, when I should be commenting or whether I pay attention is Ed hominem. Saying maybe you should pay attention before commenting is a meaningless rant, it is when you run out of arguments, speaking to facts and subject matter is what’s meaningful.

I'm assuming your question is referring to if the collective opinions of living prophets contradicts what the scriptures teach. He covers that in depth when talking about Blacks and the priesthood.

@@justadadlegend Thanks very much for taking the time to try and help me understand better. However, that assumption misses the mark. Please allow me to clarify: My question was actually referring to the following: 1st thing to hold up for comparison: the entirety of the doctrine taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that he was pointing to as a part of the "collective witness" from all prophets since Adam, which he cited as the standard by which to judge whether or not what is offered by a prophet is of God or could, instead, be a mistake. 2nd thing to hold up for comparison: The entirety of the doctrine taught by the prophets that came before the extra biblical, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints scriptures (eg. those listed in the OT, like Isaiah.) Simplified: (Abbreviation for simplicity-sake; no disrespect intended) Overall LDS Church doctrine as of today vs Overall Doctrine of the prophets that existed prior to prophets that are in scriptures unique to the LDS church Hope that makes sense.

@katiesonlinename maybe you can point out where it contradicts? We don't think it does. The Book of Mormon is an addition to scripture. It doesn't take the place of it. Perhaps we just disagree on interpretation? If that's so, then your question is invalid. We just disagree on interpretation. I think your main sticking point is likely that you don't think revelation is possible. I guess we should throw out a big portion of the New Testament. Certainly anything that isn't from Christ himself. That might set up a problem for your religion, though, too....

@@cameronvantassell9483 Thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion. 🙂 I do have some thoughts on where it seems to me there are contradictions and I would not be against sharing where it seems those contradictions can be found. The KZfaq comments section might be a tough place to start digging into such things but if you truly would like me to do so, maybe I could just start with one at a time? Let me know if that is something you think would be fruitful and I will oblige. Until then, I would like to take a moment to address the rest of your comment in small sections. First: I can appreciate that you don't think it contradicts. No one believes in something they have accepted as untrue. If they had accepted it as untrue, they wouldn't believe it. I am very close to folks that believe as you do and I want to tell you, right off the bat, that just as I work to interact with them in truth and love with respect and gentleness, my comments here are intended to encourage thought and respectful, loving dialog; not to attack, belittle or poke fun at people. It is precisely BECAUSE of my love for you and all image-bearers of God that I engage through this medium. Next: I would like to ask you about your comment regarding the Book of Mormon (BoM) being scripture. Would you mind helping me to understand what you mean when you say, "scripture?" I find it is best to define terms prior to engaging in conversation so as to avoid straw man arguments, unintendedly misrepresented beliefs, and overall confusion. Then: I would like to just comment on your point about a disagreement on interpretation. This is something that I have experienced as a staple within the responses from Latter Day Saints (LDS) whenever conflicts with scripture are presented. I certainly conceed that interpretation can have significant impact on how things in scripture are understood. My only encouragement, at this time, in cases of a disagreement regarding interpretation would be to consider this: regardless of which interpretation is correct, it is impossible for contradictory statements to exist as the truth (truth being defined as that which accurately represents reality.) The point here is that my interpretation can be false and yours can be the truth; conversely the opposite can be the case. However, **if the interpretations contradict one another,** they cannot BOTH be true. Both false: possible. One of them is the truth: possible. Both true: impossible. So, if you are interested: when you give me the green light to bring up one of the contradictions I have seen, we can take the time to work together in determining which interpretation represents the truth, which one does not or if both do not. That seems reasonable to me. Certainly, if I may request your patience as I say so, more reasonable than calling a question, whether you agree with the implications of the question or not, invalid. My kid may believe the Easter Bunny is real and yours may believe he is not, but my child's belief does not give your child good reason to call my kid's question invalid if they ask your child why they believe there's no Easter Bunny when the eggs that show up on Easter morning are clearly proof. Your child may believe they have better evidence that there is no bunny but that does not invalidate my child's question. Lastly: If I could, I would like to gently request your avoidance of assuming "[my] sticking point" or my point of view and I will do my best to honor you in the same way. The point you made about "...throw[ing] out a big portion of the New Testament..." (NT) is exactly the type of straw man argument (a fallacy where someone sets up and then attacks a position that isn't even being debated. The term comes from the idea that a scarecrow is a weak, inanimate opponent that can be easily destroyed) I am hoping to avoid by defining terms and working hard to not misrepresent each other as we each explain our own point of view. Respectfully: do you know what my religion is, for certain, at this point? If not, do you still feel confident that throwing out "anything that isn't from Christ himself" actually is a concern I should have from the standpoint of my religion? Again, I do appreciate the time you took to type out a response to me along with the time you took to read this and I genuinely would be grateful for respectful, open dialog where the goal is not to "win" but to learn and grow with the truth of God as the most important aspect of the conversation. May He bless your thoughts and understanding as you continue on from here. Let me know if you'd like to engage further and if not, my best wishes to you.

@justadadlegend no, he doesn't.

It never was a doctrine. For every prophet that says it was there’s more that say it wasn’t. You need to understand that the priesthood ban was a practice and a policy. Doctrine does not change. Policy changes.

@@igoldenknight2169 August 17, 1949 The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. The First Presidency

In very confused... was it doctrine when those prophets said it was doctrine or were they being led by the devil to withold blessings from those saints?

@@FB-mi8uw the “doctrine” they would refer to was theories on why the ban was their in the first place, which in of itself was a mistake. I wouldn’t say the prophets were led by the devil, but rather they weren’t ready because of their mortal infallibility’s. The Lord chooses the weak and infallible, us mortals, to do His will on earth. Mistakes will happen but many more miracles will.

@@igoldenknight2169 Sure, today we say that it was never 'Doctrine' but that wasn't the case for many decades and for many past prophets and apostles. Today some apostles will say "Doctrine does not change" but can we be sure and believe that? is there a scripture to back that up? I have doubts about that. But I can live now with this notion that doctrine never changes and I can also live now with the idea that the apostles, all 15, could change a doctrine if they decide to. Neither will affect salvation per se nor change my testimony of course, however, it is an interesting conversation.

Are you suggesting that the women were married to each other?

@@cubic-h6041 No. That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

@@craigcline5717 so what are you suggesting then?

@@cubic-h6041 I'm saying that the experience of plural marriage may have been quite different from the women's perspective.

@@craigcline5717 sound like you said nothing then.

I need to clarify that I absolutely believe that the priesthood ban and polygamy were wrong. Not scripturally sound at ALL-regardless of that the “collective voice” in any era has said.

And the slides are not helpful.

Not really....

It seems like that's how they keep in faith... Was it doctrine? Was it prophecy? Was it agreed upon? Was it just a mass misunderstanding? Welp... No one's perfect. Don't stop believing in us!

Maybe Jacob Hansen is wrong and Patrick Mason is right? Gay and transgender people are being accepted in the church. Hansen seems wrong about the direction the church is heading.

@nathanbigler I've seen enough of your obsessive trolling posts to know you are one of those President Oaks was talking about. People like you, who have left the Church but can't leave it alone, have been saying the doctrine of the family will change for the last 20 years. And you'll be saying the same thing 20 years from now. And you're claim the Church is being accepting of gays or transgenders is disingenuous and misleading. I suspect you've never even bothered to read the applicable parts of the Church Handbook on these issues. So you can feel justified, you simply want to believe the doctrine is changing, or will change, when it hasn't and it won't.

@jdw24 I did watch and I disagree with Jacob's conclusions and arguments. Patrick Mason seems right. Jacob seems delusional. His arguments aren't convincing.

I second this. Well said.

Prophets don't make mistakes of doctrinal matters. Think about it?

Someone didn't watch the video

I watched every minute of it. You’re kinda judgy

This is too long of a convo for KZfaq. But thank you!

@@WatchingwaitingG2D that is unless they aren't actual prophets. Read the book Man.

@@EKowallis But why does the Bible have tons of archaeological evidence to suport at least some of it's history but our Book of Mormon doesn't have a single shred of archaeological evidence? If the prophet is talking to God, how can the Brethern change doctrine about polygamy, racism and now lgbtq???

The LDS church is a lie from Brigham to Russel M Nelson. Does it have threads of truth? Yes is it worthwhile to be a member? Yes should you leave the church because it has lies and has a form of Godliness yet lacks the power thereof? Not necessarily IMO If you haven’t already Read the parable of the Redemption of Zion an overlooked revelation given to Joseph in 1833. That parable is for the church from 1833-today. It explains the agency of his servants to be slothful in building the restoration. We ignore the facts that the early saints sinned against the gospel as early as 1832 and God gave them chance after chance but all manner of evil came in among them. Read 84, 101,103,105 , 124 much light is given in these sections on Gods work to sanctify his people if they are obedient but if not they have no promise they expect at his hands. Zion will be redeemed. Hasn’t been yet but will be if we seek his Him we shall find.

@@EKowallis Can you provide a source for the DNA evidence? Years ago there was an LDS claim that there was dna link back to the middle east, but that was proved false when it was determined that the dna samples were taken from indians that had intermarried with 1600's European settlers.

@@EKowallis Why doesn't the LDS church have a list of the scholarly evidence from BYU??? I keep hearing rumors of evidence, but no one is able to provide the source. Even non-Christian archaeologists have validated the evidence from the middle east showing writings that King David existed, but why doesn't the LDS church have even one ancient testimony that show the Book of Mormon history at least has a foot hold in reality????? North America has nothing from the millions of Nephites and Laminites and their mega-cities????

That claim of DNA evidence she is posting is incorrect. So are the other claims she's making. For example, For Those who have descended from Europeans: we can still spot the Neandertal DNA in their genome. And Neandertals intermixed with European Homo sapiens more than 40,000 years ago.... We don't find Israelite DNA in Native Americans. We just don't find it. And we should if they were really here. Especially given that the Book of Mormon claims huge numbers of people and this is much more recent in time, 2500 to 1600 years ago. The numbers of people claimed in the Book of Mormon (recently being claimed along with the claim that the Israelite DNA was "diluted") and the fact that the Prophets in the Book of Mormon never mentioned all these other people whom they would have needed to send missionaries to (if there were huge numbers of other people, they would've spoken some other language, and there would have been a major Missionary focus in the Book of Mormon), shows that the Book of Mormon is incorrect as a historical document. I look upon the Book of Mormon as a religious document and not a historical document. It has many good teachings and that should be enough for us. And Kevin, you are correct that there is historical and archaeological evidence for the Bible, certainly much more than for the Book of Mormon. The record for the Bible's history is pretty good back to the time of David. Anything claimed in the Bible that occurs back before the time of David, appears to be somewhat different from what the Bible claimed. For example, the Exodus story appears to have been much different from the account in the Bible. Canaan for a long time during the possible times of Israel having the Exodus, was controlled by Egypt. It appears the real story of the Exodus is the lower class overthrowing their rulers who were Egyptian vassal Kings. So the Exodus from Egypt was really just leaving vassal rulers of Egypt. The Israelites were Canaanites. Their DNA shows this. And the archaeology shows the same culture persisted, but without a distinct class of overlords. Israel relocated to the Judean hills and established a classless Law, called the Law of Moses. So before the time of David, things are on a smaller scale than claimed in the Bible. That's okay. We do have a long history and real archaeology and a truly ancient history, and real DNA. @@kevinedward4195

And I doubt "African" was even a word - let alone "SubSaharan African" - when the Bible was written, nor even in the middle ages. I have to face palm every time some clueless millennial thinks all our terminology has been in use since Abraham's day. And regarding "inferiority" it's most likely an incomplete understanding anyway. Women are not barred from the priesthood because they are "inferior", nor was the gospel withheld from the world for 1700 years because it's inhabitants were inferior. We may as well say North Koreans can't receive the priesthood -or are under bondage - because they were not valiant in the pre-existence. Yet I'm sure there is a reason they are having this experience in mortality, and perhaps it's related somehow to their level of spirituality, but likely not in a way that we would understand. People who are offended at this idea of varying spiritual preparation & fitness for reception should remember children who die young are "banned" from the priesthood as well, and if they do receive it, it is obviously at least as delayed as it was for blacks, and even more so. Timing for gospel blessings or privileges is such a wildly variable thing that it's pointless to try to guess why there are delays for any group or individual. Who is more "cursed": the guy who has no mortal posterity but has the priesthood, or the guy without the priesthood, but has a large posterity?

Spirit of Satan is also in all. You know so we can chose one of the other. To think society as a whole is getting into a better situation you would need to be pretty crazy.

I have also been perplexed as I've studied about some of the very same subjects you've mentioned.

It’s because the Mormon church is filled with doctrinal inconsistencies that change whenever the culture changes.

I agree with your concern, I think something is interesting is how God sometimes permits us to act against what he advises if we don’t listen enough, ie, Joseph giving the manuscript to Martin Harris. Maybe if enough people in the church pray and are begging God to change his doctrine surrounding same sex marriage, he will eventually permit it even though it is wrong? Not sure. Just thoughts.

This is a fair question. And maybe? But I doubt it. In the case of the priesthood ban, being of sub-Saharan African dissent was not a sin, where same-sex sexual acts are. While blacks were banned from the priesthood and temple ordinances, those receiving the ordinances where still worthy. Allowing black to receive the ordinances was simply allowing more worthy people to receive them. In the case of homosexual behavior, that is a sin. Allowing unworthy people to receive the ordinances would be a violation of Gods law (in the case of those who lie in interviews, that passes the guilt onto the liar and the church leader has done their due diligence). An analogy could be that of a University. If the university bars blacks from attending med school, that would not disqualify the doctors who were allowed to go through the program. While on the other hand, if they gave medical degrees to students who studied economics instead, that would discredit the school and disqualify anyone with a “medical” degree who did not meet the requirements.

@@vonsowards1297 it’s “the maybe” that has me worried. I don’t personally believe it will happen either, but once we go down the road of the church making a monumental error (which error the church has not officially said is an error-in the strictest way ) it opens up the possibility of an error happening again and lasting a long time. Either way it can give false hope of those wanting same sex marriages in the church.

@@TheJanesaw I agree. Maybe the Lord would let us wonder in the wilderness for 40 years, however, we know this is the last dispensation. Is there time for the church to go through a period like that? I hope (and feel) that Jesus comes before then. But once again, God will not allow His church allow ordinances to be administered to people the church knows are not worthy. (In my opinion) it would be more likely that He would take away the ordinances before He would allow them to be corrupted. But seeing how we don’t have time for that before Jesus comes again, I doubt that would happen.

I don’t get it?

How many apostles did it take to change a lightbulb? None. They use gaslighting

THat is YOUR opinion. Jacob gives his opinion backed by scripture and reasoning. Your reasoning is based off the worldly view of sex. IMO you did not listen nor have you read the prophets words (scriptures and the totality of modern prophets) related to sexual sin. You also know that all those that say the. Prophets are wrong now, IF (and that is a ginormous IF) they did reverse centuries of prophets words related to having sex what the same sex, you and everyone else would just point out “See how wrong they are” and NOT come back into he gospel.

So you take strong issue with the Declaration on the Family?

And there it is..equality over God. Enjoy worshipping your equality idol.