I love the deliberate and thought-provoking clarity of this video on the Church's position on marriage that so many seem to be trying to change these days. Gracias 🙏
“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.
@alisarichardsramirezmusic2233 The church to be okay with civil gay marriage, because right now it is under the handbooks section of things that "may" require a membership council. But I was also even going as far as to say a future change in allowing gay same sex marriage, but many think that if that were possible it would be so far down the road.
@@komicsanz3022 you need to think even further down to celestial marriage, to exaltation. SO does that doctrine need to change then to have homosexuals enter into that exaltation state then? How does that work? If God has instituted marriage between man and woman and that's not changed are you saying because society changes morals that God must now follow what man does?
Your videos are astounding in the clarity and wisdom they provide to people as they seek to navigate and understand these difficult issues as they pertain to Church teachings and doctrines. Thank you, Jacob.
Even when you read the comments by Brigham Young regarding the Priesthood ban on Africans, he does say the curse would be lifted and that Africans would "“have [all] the privilege and more” that the rest of the church members had. You don't have prophets saying that a day will come when gays get married to each other.
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.
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
Bruce porter put out a video recently where he breaks down the difference from eternal laws, eternal truths, commandments, true doctrine, principles, and policies. And shows they have a hierarchical structure. I think what he shared casts light on what is changeable and what isn’t.
"I don't know that it's possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet." Dallin Oaks
If gay marriage won't ever become okay in the LDS church, why do we more and more seem to be on the road that leads there? The new communications director for the church is pro-gay marriage and pro-trans. This is a huge job and the one who does it works closely with the leadership of the church. Why do we more and more seem to be on the road that leads to both gay marriage but also acceptance of transgender as a legitimate thing. What about the man who "medically transitioned" and recently was baptized into the church on the records as a woman? He had to get the first presidency's approval to do it. Does that mean he...as a woman...can get married in the temple to a man? That would mean gay marriage wouldn't it? Why don't we get off the road that leads to gay marriage if we are so opposed to it? What the leaders say and do are not the same thing.
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.
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.
Blacks, able to receive priesthood ..... does not equate to..... same sex marriage to receive endowment Homosexual act is the sin... but Being Black is not a sin.... So to accept Blacks (priesthood) is not the same as accept same-sex (marriage)
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: ua-cam.com/video/6jNRU0_65f8/v-deo.html @@darrencollinwood142
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
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
Get rid of that unclean spirit that is attached to you, it has a hold on you. You don't have to give in to the temptation. Why Is Gender Essential? Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “[Gender] in large measure defines who we are, why we are here upon the earth, and what we are to do and become. For divine purposes, male and female spirits are different, distinctive, and complementary. … The unique combination of spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional capacities of both males and females were needed to implement the plan of happiness” (“Marriage Is Essential to His Eternal Plan,” Liahona, June 2006, 51; Ensign, June 2006, 83). Julie B. Beck, Relief Society general president: “As spirit daughters of God, women ‘received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth’ (D&C 138:56) on the earth. They were among the ‘noble and great ones’ (D&C 138:55) who ‘shouted for joy’ (Job 38:7) at the creation of the earth because they would be given a physical body with the opportunity to be proven in a mortal sphere (see Abraham 3:25). They wished to work side by side with righteous men to accomplish eternal goals that neither can attain independently. Female roles did not begin on earth, and they do not end here. A woman who treasures motherhood on earth will treasure motherhood in the world to come” (“A ‘Mother Heart,’” Liahona and Ensign, May 2004, 76).@@zionmama150
At what point do we ask the hard questions of our prophet? i.e. Tell us exactly how you know God is giving you doctrine, and how can we know the difference between policy? How do we know when you are speaking as a man and when you are speaking for god?
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.
You always have an excellent way of explaining the truth. The plan is for us to become like our Heavenly Parents who are in a heterosexual eternal union. Anyone who understands that understands why this doctrine can't change.
I like your collective witness framework to understand how we should approach modern-day revelation. Some things can and do change, but there is a core that has to be preserved.
By the logic that the Church will change to conform to social norms, it would follow that extra-marital sex will eventually be accepted . . . I have actually heard this sentiment expressed by my loved ones who are distancing themselves from the Church over these issues. The idea of subjecting our physical appetites to the Spirit is out of fashion.
Jacob! I was looking forward to this episode and wasn’t disappointed! I love the concept of “the collective prophetic witness” based upon the principle of witnesses. I was taught something similar by my institute teacher. Scripture, Prophets, and The Holy Ghost. Personal revelation plays a role within this as well! Not to change the church, but in obtaining a witness of the truth of your own. I want to add, I’d love to hear your thoughts about the Adam-God theory that was taught as doctrine by the prophet Brigham Young. I would love to see an episode of you discussing about that.
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.
About de priesthood ban, President George A. Smith said that it was not a policy, but a commandment from the lord. Brigham Young was not the only prophet who defended this concept. Then, who is right ? Joseph Smith, Or Brigham? Why didn't the Lord warn them of their serious mistake? if they were wrong... Cloudy..
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 video Jacob It's been my experience that activists who push for equality in institutions, such as marriage, aren't as interested as having equality within that institution so much as they are interested in tearing down the institution itself. Changing definitions is synonymous with deconstruction; and it's a Chesterton's Fence situation. My views on this have changed through the years, but I am quite convinced: This is about upholding the ideal standard for which humanity should strive. If we fail to hold the ideal of Marriage, we fail to aim at the divine. Marriage is, unequivocally, the institution that has promoted the most human flourishing and it must be defended. That's not intolerant, that's not hateful - it's compassionate, good and right. Keep up the good work!
You keep saying the priesthood ban was a policy… but it wasn’t called policy. It was absolutely presented as doctrine. Called doctrine explicitly. No one referred to it as policy until David O. McKay. So the collective voice of which prophets? Because the collective voice of the church leaders from the 1850s to the early 1900s was that the blacks were the seed of Cane, couldn’t hold the priesthood, and you couldn’t be exalted without living polygamy. To be clear, I’m not “hoping for change.” But the language surrounding this issue has softened, and certainly appears to leave room for change. “The doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman will remain unchanged.” Well that’s nice, but will new doctrine be added? Especially since the “restoration is ongoing.” The climate of confusion they’ve allowed to flourish is pretty awful. Shouldn’t say that about the brethren, right? Oh but they can be wrong. I mean obviously. Also, let me point out that the notion that a prophet can’t lead the church astray is nowhere that I’ve found besides declaration 1 and a bunch of other quotes by the guys trying to hold it all together after Joseph Smith. The rest of the scriptures have prophets outside the church hierarchy (Lehi, Abinidi, Samuel, John the Baptist…ummmm Jesus) calling the church to repentance, and the warning to beware of false prophets is all over the place.
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.
Yes, the church has officially stated in unambiguous terms that the priesthood restriction was "doctrine". This takes away the foundation of Jacob's argument
That was my question as well with the priesthood ban, why did the Lord allow it to continue? A single revelation to the prophets could have corrected that immediately
@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.
If god intended for us to marry however we pleased then he would have never created sex(“gender”) in the first place. Since we exist in male and female there has to be a purpose for it
Being told to follow the prophet, but the prophets can make mistakes, how do we trust that he is not making a mistake? I’m sorry this is a weak argument. Spin.
What’s the difference between this “collective prophetic witness model” and the “Christian creeds and counsels” that are supposedly just statements by men with no authority?
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
@@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
Very good. However, one point that Hugh Nibley made that I think is important is that the curse on Ham’s posterity was not the same curse placed on Cain. By that he said that the curse on Ham’s sons was reversed when Joseph married Asenath, who was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis. This was, according to Nibley, the reuniting of the seed of Ham with the house of Israel. From that union came Ephraim and Manasseh.
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.
Interesting arguments and approach. They do raise a few questions I’m interested to hear your thoughts on. Besides the admitted misinterpretation of the scriptures based on Protestant notions of the day regarding sub-Saharan Africans, what other false doctrines from Protestant (Campbellites) or other Christian organizations (the Masons) may have been adopted into the church and remain to this day? The video explaining the difference between making mistakes and leading a family astray was very good, but parental mistakes still have consequences that can and do lead children astray, whatever their intentions may have been. So what counts as leading astray for prophets? Has the Church taught, sorry, overtly taught your concept of Collective Prophetic Witness? Have they taken the time to wade through at least the core doctrines and identify the chain of custody of each doctrine throughout history? Would be very interested in seeing it if they have.
IS IT JUST ME or does listening to this guy feel like falling down Alice's rabbit hole? I thought I was logical since I have a degree in computer science, but I can't seem to follow his logic. Our church has said things that I have a hard time reconciling, and many people in my ward are starting to feel the same.
@@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?
I agree with you. I wonder on the priesthood issue if it were because the civil war was ramping up and to protect the church from the government or seaming to be choosing a side that the Lord declared this to Brigham Young? It would have been awful for the Saints to be called into war for the North or the South. We were already low on men, hence, plural marriage. Just a thought.
Romans chapter 1 and multiple other books of the Bible can not be more clear about God's condemnation of homosexuality practices. This will NEVER change.
Jacob, fantastic video!!!! This will be a great reference for future discussions. The law of witnesses is not well known or understood among members, in my opinion. That needs to change.
As a member who is a long time student of the brethren over the years, I agree with all the points you made. Not an easy task to do now days. Once again great work on the video and I fully endorsed it by sharing with friends on Facebook.
Yeah, curses are about a person’s heart, not the way he or she looks. And Jesus said that a man should leave father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two should be one flesh, which results in them multiplying. Which two men or two women cannot do.
The LDS is my entire world, my community, my support. If leave the LDS it would be painful. But I am beginning to think maybe God is calling to find the truth about Him and Jesus. It will be tough, but I know there is a God who will help me and sustain me even if the LDS church turns out to be a lie.
@@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
I appreciate your thorough approach. However, something fundamental isn’t making sense to me: If a church claims prophetic leadership, yet is liable to formally adopt false doctrines, as you acknowledge has happened multiple times in the LDS church (6:15, 12:03), what good is that so-called prophetic leadership? I can choose to outsource my spiritual life and moral intuition to an organization that could be wrong (and has been wrong on important things), or I can take full responsibility for my spiritual/moral life and search for truth. I’ll choose the latter, but I’m curious why people willing choose the former. You might think my question is answered by the Anthony Sweat airplane analogy (23:19), but if there’s room for error in this so-called prophetic leadership, why aren’t Mormons just Catholic?
Thanks for the video, Jacob. However, the Church has unquestionably and rapidly moved towards change on this issue. Other than a few GA talks here and there, the Church's actions have given those who desire this change a great amount of hope. The Church publicly endorsed the RFMA and encouraged its members in Congress to go along, which they did. The few attempts at explaining their rationale for the public endorsement have seemed incredibly disingenuous. There has been no action or comment by the Church to offset the rapid change in opinion by the members of the Church regarding LGBTQ+ nor to criticize the societal shifts in this arena. I would encourage looking at the changing culture of and actions by the Church as a whole, rather than holding onto a few talks in assessing whether or not the Church will change its policy on this matter. The hiring of Aaron Sherinian as their chief spokesperson speaks loudly to the direction the Church is going.
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.
There are 3 problems with collective witness model (CWM). 1. There were times when all leaders generally agreed on the doctrines, such as polygamy and blacks, and those doctrines still changed. CWM would have thus failed early members in discerning false from true doctrine. 2. Members are expected to follow an official doctrine until it is officially changed. But quite a bit of disagreement among the leaders can occur before the doctrine is eventually changed. This shows that what determines an official church’s doctrine is not the collective witness, but rather the church’s public statement on where it stands. An example of this is the disagreement among the brethren, about the priesthood band that preceded its reversal. Everyone was still expected to follow the doctrine of priesthood ban, even though the consensus on it disappeared. 3. Having to rely on theories like CWM raises questions about the nature of revelation. Historically, it is alleged to be face to face interaction, such as first vision, or D&C being a quote from the lord appearing to prophets. CWM rejects this kind of revelation and suggests that church leaders differ in their beliefs of what the doctrine and revelation is, and only their consensus counts. This idea is incompatible with the assertion that doctrines are guided by revelation. Remember that an actual definition of a doctrine is a teaching or a set of beliefs. Trying to redefine the meaning of doctrine seems to me like mental gymnastics with a purpose of trying to excuse substantial changes that occurred within the church. The question is not how we should define doctrine, it is already defined in the Oxford dictionary, the important question is whether the substantial changes that occured in church’s teaching raise doubts about its claims that men talk to god. For example, John Taylor in 1885 general conference statement stated that god promised to never reverse polygamy, shortly before it was with the next leader. Is god really that inconsistent? Answers may vary, but don’t disregard it because some leader says it’s not a reason for doubts, or because someone says it was just a policy and it is okay for it to change. Think with your own head.
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.
Jacob, the collective witness is your theory an idea. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the church teaches or believes is doctrine or not. It is a construct of your own mind and the way that you’re able to negotiate cognitive dissonance.
@@jaylambert2838 no but the manner in which he depends and utilizes it is his own sort of special application. Whatever he wants to be true or false he just decides which of the 5 witnesses he applies the most weight to. Its actually fun to watch him apply it and see how his kind can do the gymnastics
Question: what about when the "collective witness" of the restored church contradicts the "collective witness" of the prophets prior to the restored church?
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.
@@Astronomadical 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....
@@CameronVanTassell 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 UA-cam 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.
If my husband were cleaving to another woman sometimes, being emotionally and sexually intimate with her, he would NOT be cleaving to me. I don’t believe polygamy is a godly thing ever.
Protestant churches embracing gay marriage are attempting to slow or reverse dramatic reductions in attendance. In nearly every instance this strategy has backfired, causing a rapid decline in support from the most stalwart financial supporters of those churches. The LDS church has a unique problem, facing pressure from culture to a sympathetic body of members who are led by an inflexible and binding doctrine.
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?
If God could tell Peter now is the time to take the gospel to the gentiles. Why could he not tell Brigham Young to not take the priesthood away from the blacks?
Is he never going to cover the doctrinal changes of the Godhead? Also, he never answered the epistemological error in consistency I commented on his last video.
“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
We still do practice polygamy. Most of us in the church can probably name at least one or more men who are sealed to more then one woman. The caveat being that the first woman had already died when he married the second woman, but that still is polygamy. We still believe that his wives will both/all be married to him in the eternities. If our doctrine had truly changed on polygamy then temple sealings to people who have a deceased spouse would not be approved and seem as infidelity to the late spouse. And yes, I believe that someday (probably in the millennium) polygamy will come back, and our descendants will say things like “during the polygamy ban” the same way we talk about the priesthood ban.
All you proved is that leaders of the church can make policies and call things revelation/doctrine that don't actually come from God. They will do the same with gay marriage. Those who can't see the writing on the wall are simply deluding themselves.
I suppose if people are in a deep slumber, they're not studying the scriptures and seeking revelation through the Spirit. Nothing you say is hard to understand! I will never understand why people want to stay in the church if the policies don't suit their carnal ideologies. I'm not saying, "get out, just leave", I'm simply saying that we all know the church will never change policy to get in bed with sin... I guess the old adage is true, "people who leave the church don't leave the church alone". ***All of our books of scripture spell out what was carnal and devilish, why places and people were destroyed, the wicked always were scattered or perished. On the flip side, ALL of the scriptures in our church also explain what a man is and what a woman is, what marriage is and what the purpose for marriage and family are... the Bible never strays on this nor do any other sources of scriptures. Gay marriage is so brand new to the scene... this is a self entitlement request or rather, demand, that THIS church should change its mind on our policies, rearrange God's plan, throw out the Atonement of Jesus Christ, forget about the Spirit, etc etc etc. Isn't there plenty of other churches with a temple they can go to?? Muslim, Reorganized LDS, and so on?? No, and why? Because they, A) know of a surety that THIS IS the true church on the planet and they're hoping they don't have to face a judgement day or B) none of the other churches i mentioned above is going to take their bologna. If someone has SSA and is living a life of the law of chastity, I am grateful for them. If they have SSA and have gone ahead and married the opposite sex and have a family, I'm also grateful, if they have come back from a past life of SSA relationships, I'm also grateful... why are we hearing about married gay couples partaking of the Sacrament is what I want to know... that would not be taken well here in the South. I guess I just wanted to say, "What's wrong with these folks?? Go do your thing and come back later"!! Nothing will have changed when or if you return. (I have a good friend who is "gay" as she calls it... I don't ever hear her complaining against the church for her own choices, she simply abstains from the church for now... I believe she will come back... she has expressed this. She is awakening from her slumber, spends FHE at our house and found out she really loves the Book of Mormon).
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.
The whole LGBT & The Church issue is Utah-centered, Utah-centric. The loudest voices come from Utah. This is the problem with The Church: decisions are often made inside the narrow, myopic paradigm of the Utah Establishment. Too much Utah in the Church leads to a warped sense of what the reality is outside of Utah. This LGBT policy will ruin our missionary efforts worldwide, where people still hold to Christian, Biblical standards. We will look back on this with sober disappointment.
Missionary effort is to invite those who are willing to accept God's commandments. It requires change for anyone, not just LGBT folk. Some may have to give up drinking or smoking.
Reading some of the video comments, to say nothing of those from Patrick Mason or Jim Bennett, is a reminder of why President Oaks said "Many of our members do not understand the Plan of Salvation."
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’m an active, temple going member of the church. I’m hanging on hoping in the end it will turn out to be,in fact, true. BUT, there are so many things that don’t add up. I don’t follow anything blindly. I neutrally look at both sides on topics and look at the evidence. I’m silently struggling!
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.
I completely agree with your assessment and conclusion and it's application for today. Often I feel alone in this church culture of leadership adulation. But I choose to hold fast to the rod and go to church to worship God. Anything else is simply a vehicle to achieve my said goal. To worship God.
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.
@@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.
Jacob, my only concern with your argument is it creates this question (which is my number 1 concern). IF the church made the MISTAKE with the priesthood ban and it was wrong from the start (which lasted decades) then couldn’t the church (leaders) make the mistake of allowing same sex marriages and sealings?
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.
Bruce Porter gives the best, and clearest explanation regarding the Priesthood. I'd share it here, but I think those who are curious need the full background. It's really quite awesome.
Please read "Race and the Priesthood" in "Gospel Topics Essays." It says, "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." Jacob is expessing his own opinion about the ban, and I think he should be more clear on that point. He is incorrect to say the Church has "disavowed" the ban. The same article mentioned above says the Church disavows "theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else." We need to be precise about repeating official words of the Church vs. our own opinions.
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?
Jacob, I really appreciate and agree with your approach and citing the collective witness of the the prophets over time to support doctrine. I think the specific issue of preaching focus (i.e. house of Israel vs. gentiles) as given by Jesus and modified ultimately by Peter and Paul provide an instructive example as well, so thank you for discussing it as part of the conversation. I do believe that this specific example allows us to give more benefit of the doubt to past decisions of prophets as well, and I would like to hear that benefit of the doubt reflected more often in the commentary and analysis of faithful saints. It is very clear in the scriptural record that the policy not to preach to the gentiles was in place for a time, and that policy was changed, lifted, revised etc. when Peter was given a vision to change the paradigm and allow the gospel to reach new peoples and demographics from whom it was previously withheld. It is without doubt the Lord intended this to eventually happen, but to say it was a correction to a false practice or doctrine would be in great error; for it was the Lord Himself who gave the original instruction to temporarily withhold preaching to those groups of people. Two things can be true at once: there can be temporary restrictions to practice while the underlying doctrine is unchanging and universally applicable to all of God's children. The full purposes of the Lord in implementing these temporary restrictions and then lifting them at a later time have yet to be fully elaborated by Him in many instances, but will surely be a part of the further light and knowledge we will receive at a later time as part of the restoration of all things and our own personal exaltation. In the absence of that further light and knowledge, many have come up with their own interpretations about the whys. These have included apostles and prophets as well, and you have pointed out times when individual teachings were later denounced as doctrinally false or unfounded. This has particular application to the priesthood ban. It has many similarities to the preaching focus discussed above, and I firmly believe that two things can be true at once: the practice itself could have been aligned with the will of the Lord, while the surrounding suppositions and teachings regarding its purpose were rooted in prejudice and error. It is those teachings and explanations that have since been disavowed by the brethren, NOT the practice itself. Thus, to summarize that the motivations and reasons behind the temporary ban were based solely in cultural norms and beliefs is to assume a level of understanding that simply isn't justified by the current degree of light and knowledge we have been given regarding the subject. For me, there is ample room to believe that both Brigham Young and Spencer W. Kimball were acting under the inspiration of God on both ends of the temporary ban. My personal explanation relates to the Olive Tree Allegory in Jacob 5. As for the subject of Celestial Marriage, I couldn't agree with you more! :) Keep up the good fight and stand strong in defense of the faith!
12:15 For the sake of argument, those who support the "polygamy is required for exaltation" belief also believe the Adam-God theory where Adam came down to the Garden of Eden as a resurrected celestial being with ONE of his many plural wives (Eve) from a previous mortal probation.
@@WatchingwaitingG2D For clarification, I didn't say I believed that theory. I was playing "devil's advocate". Like I said at the beginning of my post, "for the sake of argument"
@GameDevFox You didn't understand what I said or meant. It had nothing to do with any theory you mentioned, though you clearly don't understand those. Overall, you don't process enough understanding or are in tune with what's really going on. You're not alone. Jacob doesn't either.
What I don't understand is if the ban was not divinely inspired, then why did we not receive revelation much earlier. I was under the impression that this policy had been queried of the Lord. "When David O. McKay questioned President Heber J. Grant about the ban in 1921, President Grant stated that: “David, I am as sympathetic as you are, but until the Lord gives us a revelation regarding that matter, we shall have to maintain the policy of the Church.”"
I AM NOT A LAZY LEARNER. How dare you call us dumb for hearing what the church and the prophets PLAINLY have said! People in my ward are starting to get really ticked off being told we are the problem for taking what the prohets and leaders say at face value.
@jdw24 Typical mind games. I have the problem because I am offended at being called dumb for being alarmed that prophets and the brethern are changing doctrine that they previously said was from God. How did we become conditioned to believe the brethern are always right no matter waht, and no one can voice concerns over their changing statements!?!?!?!?!?
@jdw24 Offended? I am disgusted that our church leadership is flat out lying to us. They know they are not talking to god. They are blowing in the wind and taking us with them. Whoops winds blowing against polygamy, better change. Whoops lgbtq people are yelling at us, better change. That is not god.
Is John still ducking a debate with Jacob? Recently in my ward a sister said in a sacrament talk that marriage is between between two consenting adults and that a sealing was between a man and a woman. I was shocked but not surprised by what I heard. I ask our bishop why he didn’t correct the false teaching. He blew me off. The saints are “lazy learners” and it it shows.
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 for me), 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.
I like the analogy of a plane that needs course correction. Each time a major dispensation was begun it was because of the need for a course correction implemented through prophets. The latter days are no exception. The plane may veer off course a bit, but will not crash. Jesus was not lying when he said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Ultimately the the Lord will prevail. Along the way, we humans (including prophets) may sometimes mess it up and must be course-corrected. Prophets are not infallible, but if we do our best to follow the prophets we will ultimately not be led astray.
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!
Time will tell, I agree, it would be dumb to make this kind of change. It's much harder to support because there's so much canonical text on this subject vs the other subjects. There was plenty of "modern revelation" supporting the doctrines of priesthood ban and polygamy too, so if they want to do it then they can and I'll bet lots of people will go along. What's the most important revelation? From the living prophet.
What does this mean about the word of wisdom and its current policy implementation? I would say that it’s for sure the case the collective witness would say your body is a temple but drinking wine is Definetly not against the commandments or gods eternal law? Does that mean we abandon the current policies or don’t follow them?
I agree Jacob, "don't be dumb!" You intelligently laid out the proper logical reasoning of the important differences between doctrines and practices and the collective witness model. Great stuff!
The airplane analogy is good, but part of the analogy has to be that for over 120 years blacks weren’t allowed on the plane. If the ultimate purpose of the Church is to enable its members to achieve exaltation, and a prerequisite for exaltation is receiving priesthood ordinances, then administering those ordinances to members is a primary, fundamental aspect of the Church. Failing to do so, whether because of false doctrine, corrupted practice, or for any other reason, is therefore a fundamental failure. In fact, it’s hard to imagine another failure more fundamental to the purposes of the Church. Yes, it was eventually corrected, but the Church was fundamentally astray for well over a hundred years. Perhaps Brother Wilford should have qualified his statement by adding “indefinitely” to the words “will not”.
I see what you are getting at, but I think one could use that same logic to say that church under the law of Moses was astray for thousands of years because it restricted the priesthood to only the Levites, and restricted people who weren't of Jewish decent (like gentiles) from being taught the gospel. The key to all of these situations is that an all knowing God has taken all of man's prejudice and unfairness into account. His plan involves giving everyone the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel in its fullness. He would never allow that plan to be frustrated indefinitely because man has weaknesses like racism, exclusion, and prejudice. Thus, he has provided a life after this one where people can still learn and accept the gospel as a spirit, before they are resurrected. Ordinances like baptism, receiving the priesthood, and marriage, however, can only be performed on people with a body. This is precisely why proxy work for the dead existed in the early church (1 Corinthians 15:29) That important work continues in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints today. I don't personally know any other Christian sect that continues this important practice. In Latter-Day Saint temples, a living person is able to stand in as proxy, receiving an ordinance (including priesthood ordination) on behalf of someone who has already passed on to the spirit world. The person who has passed on then has the choice to accept their proxy ordinance or not.
Plural marriage was never essential for exaltation as such; *faithfulness* always is. If God commanded Noah to build an Ark, he had be faithful to that commandment to be blessed and exalted; that doesn't mean that all Saints everywhere have to build an Ark.
NO WONDER my ward is shrinking. People have had enough of being told one thing and then being told another thing, but then told what they plainly heard isn't what they heard and that there is not inconsistency between the different things that the church said, it is only because we are lazy learners that we don't understand. YEAH RIGHT, my shelf is breaking.
I went through EXACTLY this a couple years ago. I went to my bishop, then stake president, then wrote a letter to the first presidency. The responses were so dishonest ("that's not what was said by past prophets.........") and insulting to my intelligence I had no choice but to finally accept LDS church leadership are very comfortable with dishonesty and gaslighting. I haven't paid tithing since then and only go to church when my family wants to go. I also refuse to accept any callings.
@@carsonwilliams2746 But LDS is my entire world, my community my support. If leave the LDS it would be painful. But I am beginning to think maybe God is calling to find the truth about Him and Jesus. It will be tough, but I know there is a God who will help me and sustain me even if the LDS church turns out to be a lie.
I completely understand, but remember, the gospel is true and the Atonement is real, but the Church is made up of fallible and imperfect mortals who make mistakes and have the agency to make wrong choices. Don't turn your back on the Savior over ultimately unimportant disagreements.
Do not forget what the prophet has been saying about Following the Holy Ghost. It's insane that members are struggling with fundamentals. Everything the prophet has said is coming to pass. Follow the Spirit and learn to recognize the Lord's voice in your personal study, and through the brethren. It'll get much harder than it is now.
I just can’t believe I’m hearing LDS members blame Protestants for the LDS priesthood ban . This is ridiculous, I mean do you have a prophet or not? “Hello! McFly, anybody home ? “ SMH
Jacob, is collective witness model your creation? Have you considered writing a book/workbook? I think an in-depth book with models and examples on how to take a question and walk it through the model could help people develop logical reasoning. First, walk through this model for answers to gospel questions and next, now that they have done the work, pray. People nowadays have little knowledge of how to come to a logical conclusion and then go to God with what they have learned. Just a thought. But if you do chose to write one, I’ll buy the first copy!😊
IMO Jacob makes these videos so he can stir up controversy and get clicks. It’s going to be glorious when the church does end up accepting gay marriage in the temple. Because it’s going to show love and equality for all of Gods children. It’s also going to be seamless for mental Gymnasts like Jacob, because he will calmly make up a new narrative and then claim the truthfulness of the church! The many changes the church has made have all been for the better. This will be no exception and giving love and respect for ALL of the Lords children will also be for the better. The prophets aren’t listening to Jacobs thoughts. He’s a common podcaster who spews hate and ignorance hoping to get clicks and make money off of his podcast. The prophets listen to the Lord and when the Lord prompts them to make the change then they will.
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.
11:15 Absolutely correct! We don't practice plural marriage in mortality at this time. But it is still a doctrine that we hold to. My Dad is sealed to two women. He was married to, and sealed to his second Wife after his first Wife died.
I am confused about what doctrine is and isn't. DC132 says god commands polygamy for celestial exaltation. Is this still doctrine? What exactly did the subsequent prophet say that god said about polygamy such that we don't practice it today? Does our church still believe in polygamy but just not practice it? or does our church condemn it? What is the doctrine?
You're definitely onto something.💯 Continue down the rabbit hole and you'll learn that the main church caved to the "powers that be" in order to not lose their wealth and property, and as a result, the devil stepped in. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, as it's not the fault of any members today. It happened many years ago when the true Keyholder, John Taylor, was essentially driven into hiding with a few who were determined (and commanded by our Savior and the Prophet Joseph personally) to keep the Celestial Law alive. He died in exile, but the work carried on in the wilderness, so to speak.
I would go back and read section 132 again, and examine it as two parts. Part 1 (3-33) and part 2 (34-66). Part 1 contain truths of eternal marriage, part 2 pertaining to the practice of polygamy. Also paying attention to the language used in the section (mainly the use of the world wife, singular, and not wives, plural, when discussing exaltation.) I hope that helps.
@jdw24 I can believe a person has legal rights because they live in a country that has the Constitution That guarantees them that. that doesn't mean I have to agree with it as a moral issue.I did not say that because something is legal it is right. I simply said there's a difference between legality and morality.
Spot on. The Family Proclamation tells us to support measures that strengthen the Family. Sad, however that our current crop of leaders are sending mixed messages in this area.
I love the deliberate and thought-provoking clarity of this video on the Church's position on marriage that so many seem to be trying to change these days.
Gracias 🙏
“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.
Ooo, I love that you make a bold stand at 16:30, "expect true disciples of Jesus Christ to say 'no'". That was awesome.
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.
@@komicsanz3022expect what to change?
@alisarichardsramirezmusic2233 The church to be okay with civil gay marriage, because right now it is under the handbooks section of things that "may" require a membership council. But I was also even going as far as to say a future change in allowing gay same sex marriage, but many think that if that were possible it would be so far down the road.
@@komicsanz3022 you need to think even further down to celestial marriage, to exaltation. SO does that doctrine need to change then to have homosexuals enter into that exaltation state then? How does that work? If God has instituted marriage between man and woman and that's not changed are you saying because society changes morals that God must now follow what man does?
Your videos are astounding in the clarity and wisdom they provide to people as they seek to navigate and understand these difficult issues as they pertain to Church teachings and doctrines. Thank you, Jacob.
Thank you for adding oil to my lamp! You are brilliant and I appreciate the work you are doing. Keep it up.
...and thank you for being willing to say, "thats dumb." Its refreshing to hear a little of that coming from other members.
Even when you read the comments by Brigham Young regarding the Priesthood ban on Africans, he does say the curse would be lifted and that Africans would "“have [all] the privilege and more” that the rest of the church members had. You don't have prophets saying that a day will come when gays get married to each other.
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"
Bruce porter put out a video recently where he breaks down the difference from eternal laws, eternal truths, commandments, true doctrine, principles, and policies. And shows they have a hierarchical structure. I think what he shared casts light on what is changeable and what isn’t.
"I don't know that it's possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet." Dallin Oaks
If gay marriage won't ever become okay in the LDS church, why do we more and more seem to be on the road that leads there? The new communications director for the church is pro-gay marriage and pro-trans. This is a huge job and the one who does it works closely with the leadership of the church. Why do we more and more seem to be on the road that leads to both gay marriage but also acceptance of transgender as a legitimate thing. What about the man who "medically transitioned" and recently was baptized into the church on the records as a woman? He had to get the first presidency's approval to do it. Does that mean he...as a woman...can get married in the temple to a man? That would mean gay marriage wouldn't it? Why don't we get off the road that leads to gay marriage if we are so opposed to it? What the leaders say and do are not the same thing.
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.
Jacob, just want you to know that I have been encouraged by your videos. Thank you. 🙏🏻
Blacks, able to receive priesthood
..... does not equate to.....
same sex marriage to receive endowment
Homosexual act is the sin...
but Being Black is not a sin....
So to accept Blacks (priesthood)
is not the same as
accept same-sex (marriage)
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:
ua-cam.com/video/6jNRU0_65f8/v-deo.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?
If the church allows gay marriage it will no longer be the true church of Jesus the Christ.
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
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.
Get rid of that unclean spirit that is attached to you, it has a hold on you. You don't have to give in to the temptation.
Why Is Gender Essential?
Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “[Gender] in large measure defines who we are, why we are here upon the earth, and what we are to do and become. For divine purposes, male and female spirits are different, distinctive, and complementary. … The unique combination of spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional capacities of both males and females were needed to implement the plan of happiness” (“Marriage Is Essential to His Eternal Plan,” Liahona, June 2006, 51; Ensign, June 2006, 83).
Julie B. Beck, Relief Society general president: “As spirit daughters of God, women ‘received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth’ (D&C 138:56) on the earth. They were among the ‘noble and great ones’ (D&C 138:55) who ‘shouted for joy’ (Job 38:7) at the creation of the earth because they would be given a physical body with the opportunity to be proven in a mortal sphere (see Abraham 3:25). They wished to work side by side with righteous men to accomplish eternal goals that neither can attain independently. Female roles did not begin on earth, and they do not end here. A woman who treasures motherhood on earth will treasure motherhood in the world to come” (“A ‘Mother Heart,’” Liahona and Ensign, May 2004, 76).@@zionmama150
At what point do we ask the hard questions of our prophet? i.e. Tell us exactly how you know God is giving you doctrine, and how can we know the difference between policy? How do we know when you are speaking as a man and when you are speaking for god?
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.
Great video! Appreciate your time and effort into making this series as it is an important topic in today’s times! And doing it clearly as well
Great consistency Jacob both in content and presentation! - so well done!
You always have an excellent way of explaining the truth. The plan is for us to become like our Heavenly Parents who are in a heterosexual eternal union. Anyone who understands that understands why this doctrine can't change.
Yes.
I like your collective witness framework to understand how we should approach modern-day revelation. Some things can and do change, but there is a core that has to be preserved.
By the logic that the Church will change to conform to social norms, it would follow that extra-marital sex will eventually be accepted . . . I have actually heard this sentiment expressed by my loved ones who are distancing themselves from the Church over these issues. The idea of subjecting our physical appetites to the Spirit is out of fashion.
Good video. In Cardon's defense I remember that wasn't his own argument. He was voicing an argument people are using.
Playing devils advocate.
The Saints at first were baptizing and given them priesthood... They were threatened because of it in Missouri.
Jacob! I was looking forward to this episode and wasn’t disappointed!
I love the concept of “the collective prophetic witness” based upon the principle of witnesses. I was taught something similar by my institute teacher. Scripture, Prophets, and The Holy Ghost. Personal revelation plays a role within this as well! Not to change the church, but in obtaining a witness of the truth of your own.
I want to add, I’d love to hear your thoughts about the Adam-God theory that was taught as doctrine by the prophet Brigham Young. I would love to see an episode of you discussing about that.
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.
About de priesthood ban, President George A. Smith said that it was not a policy, but a commandment from the lord. Brigham Young was not the only prophet who defended this concept. Then, who is right ? Joseph Smith, Or Brigham?
Why didn't the Lord warn them of their serious mistake? if they were wrong...
Cloudy..
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 video Jacob
It's been my experience that activists who push for equality in institutions, such as marriage, aren't as interested as having equality within that institution so much as they are interested in tearing down the institution itself. Changing definitions is synonymous with deconstruction; and it's a Chesterton's Fence situation.
My views on this have changed through the years, but I am quite convinced: This is about upholding the ideal standard for which humanity should strive. If we fail to hold the ideal of Marriage, we fail to aim at the divine. Marriage is, unequivocally, the institution that has promoted the most human flourishing and it must be defended. That's not intolerant, that's not hateful - it's compassionate, good and right.
Keep up the good work!
❤
Great job. This puts everything into perspective. Truth does that. Thank you!
You keep saying the priesthood ban was a policy… but it wasn’t called policy. It was absolutely presented as doctrine. Called doctrine explicitly. No one referred to it as policy until David O. McKay. So the collective voice of which prophets? Because the collective voice of the church leaders from the 1850s to the early 1900s was that the blacks were the seed of Cane, couldn’t hold the priesthood, and you couldn’t be exalted without living polygamy. To be clear, I’m not “hoping for change.” But the language surrounding this issue has softened, and certainly appears to leave room for change. “The doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman will remain unchanged.” Well that’s nice, but will new doctrine be added? Especially since the “restoration is ongoing.” The climate of confusion they’ve allowed to flourish is pretty awful. Shouldn’t say that about the brethren, right? Oh but they can be wrong. I mean obviously. Also, let me point out that the notion that a prophet can’t lead the church astray is nowhere that I’ve found besides declaration 1 and a bunch of other quotes by the guys trying to hold it all together after Joseph Smith. The rest of the scriptures have prophets outside the church hierarchy (Lehi, Abinidi, Samuel, John the Baptist…ummmm Jesus) calling the church to repentance, and the warning to beware of false prophets is all over the place.
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.
Yes, the church has officially stated in unambiguous terms that the priesthood restriction was "doctrine". This takes away the foundation of Jacob's argument
This is one of the best and most important videos on the entire Internet. I wish the whole world would watch and rewatch this one.
That was my question as well with the priesthood ban, why did the Lord allow it to continue? A single revelation to the prophets could have corrected that immediately
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.
If god intended for us to marry however we pleased then he would have never created sex(“gender”) in the first place. Since we exist in male and female there has to be a purpose for it
Jacob, this is your best work so far. Truly exceptional. Thank you so much for your time and effort, and I hope you’ll never stop.
Might want to fix your slide that says "ECT ECT ECT" to "ETC ETC ETC"
Being told to follow the prophet, but the prophets can make mistakes, how do we trust that he is not making a mistake? I’m sorry this is a weak argument. Spin.
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 UA-cam. But thank you!
@@WatchingwaitingG2D that is unless they aren't actual prophets. Read the book Man.
11:59 - “For a brief period between 1850-1890…” Do you really consider 40 years a "brief period” in the history of an almost 200 year old church?
What’s the difference between this “collective prophetic witness model” and the “Christian creeds and counsels” that are supposedly just statements by men with no authority?
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
@@CameronVanTassell 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
Very good. However, one point that Hugh Nibley made that I think is important is that the curse on Ham’s posterity was not the same curse placed on Cain. By that he said that the curse on Ham’s sons was reversed when Joseph married Asenath, who was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis. This was, according to Nibley, the reuniting of the seed of Ham with the house of Israel. From that union came Ephraim and Manasseh.
So you admit that early prophets seers and revelators were wrong???
If they were wrong before what makes us think they can’t be wrong now?
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 😂
Interesting arguments and approach. They do raise a few questions I’m interested to hear your thoughts on. Besides the admitted misinterpretation of the scriptures based on Protestant notions of the day regarding sub-Saharan Africans, what other false doctrines from Protestant (Campbellites) or other Christian organizations (the Masons) may have been adopted into the church and remain to this day? The video explaining the difference between making mistakes and leading a family astray was very good, but parental mistakes still have consequences that can and do lead children astray, whatever their intentions may have been. So what counts as leading astray for prophets? Has the Church taught, sorry, overtly taught your concept of Collective Prophetic Witness? Have they taken the time to wade through at least the core doctrines and identify the chain of custody of each doctrine throughout history? Would be very interested in seeing it if they have.
I second this. Well said.
IS IT JUST ME or does listening to this guy feel like falling down Alice's rabbit hole? I thought I was logical since I have a degree in computer science, but I can't seem to follow his logic. Our church has said things that I have a hard time reconciling, and many people in my ward are starting to feel the same.
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?
I agree with you. I wonder on the priesthood issue if it were because the civil war was ramping up and to protect the church from the government or seaming to be choosing a side that the Lord declared this to Brigham Young? It would have been awful for the Saints to be called into war for the North or the South. We were already low on men, hence, plural marriage. Just a thought.
Romans chapter 1 and multiple other books of the Bible can not be more clear about God's condemnation of homosexuality practices.
This will NEVER change.
Excellent video, Jacob. You hit on so many solid points. Thank you.
"Each marriage in a plural marriage is a marriage between a man and a woman." Sure, Jacob, tell the women that.
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.
Jacob, fantastic video!!!! This will be a great reference for future discussions. The law of witnesses is not well known or understood among members, in my opinion. That needs to change.
As a member who is a long time student of the brethren over the years, I agree with all the points you made. Not an easy task to do now days. Once again great work on the video and I fully endorsed it by sharing with friends on Facebook.
Yeah, curses are about a person’s heart, not the way he or she looks. And Jesus said that a man should leave father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two should be one flesh, which results in them multiplying. Which two men or two women cannot do.
The LDS is my entire world, my community, my support. If leave the LDS it would be painful. But I am beginning to think maybe God is calling to find the truth about Him and Jesus. It will be tough, but I know there is a God who will help me and sustain me even if the LDS church turns out to be a lie.
@@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
I appreciate your thorough approach. However, something fundamental isn’t making sense to me: If a church claims prophetic leadership, yet is liable to formally adopt false doctrines, as you acknowledge has happened multiple times in the LDS church (6:15, 12:03), what good is that so-called prophetic leadership? I can choose to outsource my spiritual life and moral intuition to an organization that could be wrong (and has been wrong on important things), or I can take full responsibility for my spiritual/moral life and search for truth. I’ll choose the latter, but I’m curious why people willing choose the former.
You might think my question is answered by the Anthony Sweat airplane analogy (23:19), but if there’s room for error in this so-called prophetic leadership, why aren’t Mormons just Catholic?
Thanks for the video, Jacob. However, the Church has unquestionably and rapidly moved towards change on this issue. Other than a few GA talks here and there, the Church's actions have given those who desire this change a great amount of hope. The Church publicly endorsed the RFMA and encouraged its members in Congress to go along, which they did. The few attempts at explaining their rationale for the public endorsement have seemed incredibly disingenuous. There has been no action or comment by the Church to offset the rapid change in opinion by the members of the Church regarding LGBTQ+ nor to criticize the societal shifts in this arena.
I would encourage looking at the changing culture of and actions by the Church as a whole, rather than holding onto a few talks in assessing whether or not the Church will change its policy on this matter. The hiring of Aaron Sherinian as their chief spokesperson speaks loudly to the direction the Church is going.
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.
There are 3 problems with collective witness model (CWM).
1. There were times when all leaders generally agreed on the doctrines, such as polygamy and blacks, and those doctrines still changed. CWM would have thus failed early members in discerning false from true doctrine.
2. Members are expected to follow an official doctrine until it is officially changed. But quite a bit of disagreement among the leaders can occur before the doctrine is eventually changed. This shows that what determines an official church’s doctrine is not the collective witness, but rather the church’s public statement on where it stands. An example of this is the disagreement among the brethren, about the priesthood band that preceded its reversal. Everyone was still expected to follow the doctrine of priesthood ban, even though the consensus on it disappeared.
3. Having to rely on theories like CWM raises questions about the nature of revelation. Historically, it is alleged to be face to face interaction, such as first vision, or D&C being a quote from the lord appearing to prophets. CWM rejects this kind of revelation and suggests that church leaders differ in their beliefs of what the doctrine and revelation is, and only their consensus counts. This idea is incompatible with the assertion that doctrines are guided by revelation.
Remember that an actual definition of a doctrine is a teaching or a set of beliefs. Trying to redefine the meaning of doctrine seems to me like mental gymnastics with a purpose of trying to excuse substantial changes that occurred within the church. The question is not how we should define doctrine, it is already defined in the Oxford dictionary, the important question is whether the substantial changes that occured in church’s teaching raise doubts about its claims that men talk to god. For example, John Taylor in 1885 general conference statement stated that god promised to never reverse polygamy, shortly before it was with the next leader. Is god really that inconsistent? Answers may vary, but don’t disregard it because some leader says it’s not a reason for doubts, or because someone says it was just a policy and it is okay for it to change. Think with your own head.
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.
Jacob, the collective witness is your theory an idea. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the church teaches or believes is doctrine or not. It is a construct of your own mind and the way that you’re able to negotiate cognitive dissonance.
It has been taught by many other people, actually. True or not, it’s not this guy’s original ideas.
@@jaylambert2838 no but the manner in which he depends and utilizes it is his own sort of special application. Whatever he wants to be true or false he just decides which of the 5 witnesses he applies the most weight to. Its actually fun to watch him apply it and see how his kind can do the gymnastics
I love you Jacob, but collective witness? A man is either a Prophet or hes not.
A Prophet can not lead the people or the church astray.
Question: what about when the "collective witness" of the restored church contradicts the "collective witness" of the prophets prior to the restored church?
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.
@@Astronomadical 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....
@@CameronVanTassell 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 UA-cam 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.
If my husband were cleaving to another woman sometimes, being emotionally and sexually intimate with her, he would NOT be cleaving to me. I don’t believe polygamy is a godly thing ever.
You don’t sound like you’ve read the Bible.
Protestant churches embracing gay marriage are attempting to slow or reverse dramatic reductions in attendance. In nearly every instance this strategy has backfired, causing a rapid decline in support from the most stalwart financial supporters of those churches. The LDS church has a unique problem, facing pressure from culture to a sympathetic body of members who are led by an inflexible and binding doctrine.
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?
If God could tell Peter now is the time to take the gospel to the gentiles. Why could he not tell Brigham Young to not take the priesthood away from the blacks?
Is he never going to cover the doctrinal changes of the Godhead? Also, he never answered the epistemological error in consistency I commented on his last video.
“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
Very good commentary. Spot on I witness to the truth of your words. Thank you brother . Keep it up. You should give that talk in conference.
We still do practice polygamy. Most of us in the church can probably name at least one or more men who are sealed to more then one woman. The caveat being that the first woman had already died when he married the second woman, but that still is polygamy. We still believe that his wives will both/all be married to him in the eternities. If our doctrine had truly changed on polygamy then temple sealings to people who have a deceased spouse would not be approved and seem as infidelity to the late spouse.
And yes, I believe that someday (probably in the millennium) polygamy will come back, and our descendants will say things like “during the polygamy ban” the same way we talk about the priesthood ban.
Well....we know what your fantasies are😱😱. Dream on perv
All you proved is that leaders of the church can make policies and call things revelation/doctrine that don't actually come from God. They will do the same with gay marriage. Those who can't see the writing on the wall are simply deluding themselves.
Glad my family been got out just follow the most high from home like scriptures says😂
I suppose if people are in a deep slumber, they're not studying the scriptures and seeking revelation through the Spirit. Nothing you say is hard to understand! I will never understand why people want to stay in the church if the policies don't suit their carnal ideologies. I'm not saying, "get out, just leave", I'm simply saying that we all know the church will never change policy to get in bed with sin... I guess the old adage is true, "people who leave the church don't leave the church alone". ***All of our books of scripture spell out what was carnal and devilish, why places and people were destroyed, the wicked always were scattered or perished. On the flip side, ALL of the scriptures in our church also explain what a man is and what a woman is, what marriage is and what the purpose for marriage and family are... the Bible never strays on this nor do any other sources of scriptures. Gay marriage is so brand new to the scene... this is a self entitlement request or rather, demand, that THIS church should change its mind on our policies, rearrange God's plan, throw out the Atonement of Jesus Christ, forget about the Spirit, etc etc etc. Isn't there plenty of other churches with a temple they can go to?? Muslim, Reorganized LDS, and so on?? No, and why? Because they, A) know of a surety that THIS IS the true church on the planet and they're hoping they don't have to face a judgement day or B) none of the other churches i mentioned above is going to take their bologna. If someone has SSA and is living a life of the law of chastity, I am grateful for them. If they have SSA and have gone ahead and married the opposite sex and have a family, I'm also grateful, if they have come back from a past life of SSA relationships, I'm also grateful... why are we hearing about married gay couples partaking of the Sacrament is what I want to know... that would not be taken well here in the South. I guess I just wanted to say, "What's wrong with these folks?? Go do your thing and come back later"!! Nothing will have changed when or if you return. (I have a good friend who is "gay" as she calls it... I don't ever hear her complaining against the church for her own choices, she simply abstains from the church for now... I believe she will come back... she has expressed this. She is awakening from her slumber, spends FHE at our house and found out she really loves the Book of Mormon).
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.
I love your commentary which clearly shows modern prophets and apostles are fallible and often wrong.
“What does this all mean?”
- Jacob
…it’s BS. Your very collective witness model is meaningless when it’s not based in reality.
@jdw24 I know when something is junk philosophy, and this IS some of the worst garbage I’ve ever heard.
Brother Sweat was my D&C teacher at BYU. He's awesome. Great guy, great teacher
The whole LGBT & The Church issue is Utah-centered, Utah-centric. The loudest voices come from Utah. This is the problem with The Church: decisions are often made inside the narrow, myopic paradigm of the Utah Establishment. Too much Utah in the Church leads to a warped sense of what the reality is outside of Utah. This LGBT policy will ruin our missionary efforts worldwide, where people still hold to Christian, Biblical standards. We will look back on this with sober disappointment.
Missionary effort is to invite those who are willing to accept God's commandments. It requires change for anyone, not just LGBT folk. Some may have to give up drinking or smoking.
This is beautiful work. Thank you!
Thank you this was well said. There are plenty churches that allow gay marriage so go there instead of trying to force us to change.
Another great one Jacob!
Reading some of the video comments, to say nothing of those from Patrick Mason or Jim Bennett, is a reminder of why President Oaks said "Many of our members do not understand the Plan of Salvation."
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’m an active, temple going member of the church. I’m hanging on hoping in the end it will turn out to be,in fact, true. BUT, there are so many things that don’t add up. I don’t follow anything blindly. I neutrally look at both sides on topics and look at the evidence. I’m silently struggling!
I worry that you are going to have more and more haters - but I loved your analysis and I feel it is spot on.
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.
I completely agree with your assessment and conclusion and it's application for today. Often I feel alone in this church culture of leadership adulation. But I choose to hold fast to the rod and go to church to worship God. Anything else is simply a vehicle to achieve my said goal. To worship God.
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.
Jacob, my only concern with your argument is it creates this question (which is my number 1 concern). IF the church made the MISTAKE with the priesthood ban and it was wrong from the start (which lasted decades) then couldn’t the church (leaders) make the mistake of allowing same sex marriages and sealings?
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.
Bruce Porter gives the best, and clearest explanation regarding the Priesthood. I'd share it here, but I think those who are curious need the full background. It's really quite awesome.
Please read "Race and the Priesthood" in "Gospel Topics Essays." It says, "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." Jacob is expessing his own opinion about the ban, and I think he should be more clear on that point. He is incorrect to say the Church has "disavowed" the ban. The same article mentioned above says the Church disavows "theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else." We need to be precise about repeating official words of the Church vs. our own opinions.
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?
Jacob, I really appreciate and agree with your approach and citing the collective witness of the the prophets over time to support doctrine. I think the specific issue of preaching focus (i.e. house of Israel vs. gentiles) as given by Jesus and modified ultimately by Peter and Paul provide an instructive example as well, so thank you for discussing it as part of the conversation.
I do believe that this specific example allows us to give more benefit of the doubt to past decisions of prophets as well, and I would like to hear that benefit of the doubt reflected more often in the commentary and analysis of faithful saints. It is very clear in the scriptural record that the policy not to preach to the gentiles was in place for a time, and that policy was changed, lifted, revised etc. when Peter was given a vision to change the paradigm and allow the gospel to reach new peoples and demographics from whom it was previously withheld. It is without doubt the Lord intended this to eventually happen, but to say it was a correction to a false practice or doctrine would be in great error; for it was the Lord Himself who gave the original instruction to temporarily withhold preaching to those groups of people. Two things can be true at once: there can be temporary restrictions to practice while the underlying doctrine is unchanging and universally applicable to all of God's children. The full purposes of the Lord in implementing these temporary restrictions and then lifting them at a later time have yet to be fully elaborated by Him in many instances, but will surely be a part of the further light and knowledge we will receive at a later time as part of the restoration of all things and our own personal exaltation.
In the absence of that further light and knowledge, many have come up with their own interpretations about the whys. These have included apostles and prophets as well, and you have pointed out times when individual teachings were later denounced as doctrinally false or unfounded. This has particular application to the priesthood ban. It has many similarities to the preaching focus discussed above, and I firmly believe that two things can be true at once: the practice itself could have been aligned with the will of the Lord, while the surrounding suppositions and teachings regarding its purpose were rooted in prejudice and error. It is those teachings and explanations that have since been disavowed by the brethren, NOT the practice itself. Thus, to summarize that the motivations and reasons behind the temporary ban were based solely in cultural norms and beliefs is to assume a level of understanding that simply isn't justified by the current degree of light and knowledge we have been given regarding the subject. For me, there is ample room to believe that both Brigham Young and Spencer W. Kimball were acting under the inspiration of God on both ends of the temporary ban. My personal explanation relates to the Olive Tree Allegory in Jacob 5.
As for the subject of Celestial Marriage, I couldn't agree with you more! :) Keep up the good fight and stand strong in defense of the faith!
12:15 For the sake of argument, those who support the "polygamy is required for exaltation" belief also believe the Adam-God theory where Adam came down to the Garden of Eden as a resurrected celestial being with ONE of his many plural wives (Eve) from a previous mortal probation.
Your problem is that you don't understand what you believe is inadequate.
@@WatchingwaitingG2D For clarification, I didn't say I believed that theory. I was playing "devil's advocate". Like I said at the beginning of my post, "for the sake of argument"
It was a reply to your sake of argument-why get defensive. 🙂
@GameDevFox You didn't understand what I said or meant. It had nothing to do with any theory you mentioned, though you clearly don't understand those. Overall, you don't process enough understanding or are in tune with what's really going on. You're not alone. Jacob doesn't either.
Regardless-We still ❤YOU!
What I don't understand is if the ban was not divinely inspired, then why did we not receive revelation much earlier. I was under the impression that this policy had been queried of the Lord.
"When David O. McKay questioned President Heber J. Grant about the ban in 1921, President Grant stated that: “David, I am as sympathetic as you are, but until the Lord gives us a revelation regarding that matter, we shall have to maintain the policy of the Church.”"
I AM NOT A LAZY LEARNER. How dare you call us dumb for hearing what the church and the prophets PLAINLY have said! People in my ward are starting to get really ticked off being told we are the problem for taking what the prohets and leaders say at face value.
@jdw24 Typical mind games. I have the problem because I am offended at being called dumb for being alarmed that prophets and the brethern are changing doctrine that they previously said was from God. How did we become conditioned to believe the brethern are always right no matter waht, and no one can voice concerns over their changing statements!?!?!?!?!?
@jdw24 Offended? I am disgusted that our church leadership is flat out lying to us. They know they are not talking to god. They are blowing in the wind and taking us with them. Whoops winds blowing against polygamy, better change. Whoops lgbtq people are yelling at us, better change. That is not god.
Everything starts to make sense once you realize that we haven't had an actual prophet since Joseph Smith
@kenedward4585 which changing statements are you specifically speaking of?
Is John still ducking a debate with Jacob? Recently in my ward a sister said in a sacrament talk that marriage is between between two consenting adults and that a sealing was between a man and a woman. I was shocked but not surprised by what I heard. I ask our bishop why he didn’t correct the false teaching. He blew me off. The saints are “lazy learners” and it it shows.
How many Mormons does it take to change a light bulb? Two! One to change it and one to say nothing changed. 😆
I don’t get it?
How many apostles did it take to change a lightbulb? None. They use gaslighting
"For those in the back..." 😂 Awesome! 💯
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 for me), 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.
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 like the analogy of a plane that needs course correction. Each time a major dispensation was begun it was because of the need for a course correction implemented through prophets. The latter days are no exception. The plane may veer off course a bit, but will not crash. Jesus was not lying when he said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Ultimately the the Lord will prevail. Along the way, we humans (including prophets) may sometimes mess it up and must be course-corrected. Prophets are not infallible, but if we do our best to follow the prophets we will ultimately not be led astray.
I'm sorry, but there are some major mental gymnastics going on here.
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!
Time will tell, I agree, it would be dumb to make this kind of change. It's much harder to support because there's so much canonical text on this subject vs the other subjects. There was plenty of "modern revelation" supporting the doctrines of priesthood ban and polygamy too, so if they want to do it then they can and I'll bet lots of people will go along. What's the most important revelation? From the living prophet.
Thank you for being the voice we all share!!! ❤
What does this mean about the word of wisdom and its current policy implementation? I would say that it’s for sure the case the collective witness would say your body is a temple but drinking wine is Definetly not against the commandments or gods eternal law? Does that mean we abandon the current policies or don’t follow them?
I agree Jacob, "don't be dumb!" You intelligently laid out the proper logical reasoning of the important differences between doctrines and practices and the collective witness model. Great stuff!
2 People who are married are committed to each other. I see no problem with them morally, just for being married.
ok weirdo
The airplane analogy is good, but part of the analogy has to be that for over 120 years blacks weren’t allowed on the plane. If the ultimate purpose of the Church is to enable its members to achieve exaltation, and a prerequisite for exaltation is receiving priesthood ordinances, then administering those ordinances to members is a primary, fundamental aspect of the Church. Failing to do so, whether because of false doctrine, corrupted practice, or for any other reason, is therefore a fundamental failure. In fact, it’s hard to imagine another failure more fundamental to the purposes of the Church. Yes, it was eventually corrected, but the Church was fundamentally astray for well over a hundred years. Perhaps Brother Wilford should have qualified his statement by adding “indefinitely” to the words “will not”.
I see what you are getting at, but I think one could use that same logic to say that church under the law of Moses was astray for thousands of years because it restricted the priesthood to only the Levites, and restricted people who weren't of Jewish decent (like gentiles) from being taught the gospel. The key to all of these situations is that an all knowing God has taken all of man's prejudice and unfairness into account. His plan involves giving everyone the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel in its fullness. He would never allow that plan to be frustrated indefinitely because man has weaknesses like racism, exclusion, and prejudice. Thus, he has provided a life after this one where people can still learn and accept the gospel as a spirit, before they are resurrected. Ordinances like baptism, receiving the priesthood, and marriage, however, can only be performed on people with a body. This is precisely why proxy work for the dead existed in the early church (1 Corinthians 15:29) That important work continues in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints today. I don't personally know any other Christian sect that continues this important practice. In Latter-Day Saint temples, a living person is able to stand in as proxy, receiving an ordinance (including priesthood ordination) on behalf of someone who has already passed on to the spirit world. The person who has passed on then has the choice to accept their proxy ordinance or not.
Plural marriage was never essential for exaltation as such; *faithfulness* always is. If God commanded Noah to build an Ark, he had be faithful to that commandment to be blessed and exalted; that doesn't mean that all Saints everywhere have to build an Ark.
NO WONDER my ward is shrinking. People have had enough of being told one thing and then being told another thing, but then told what they plainly heard isn't what they heard and that there is not inconsistency between the different things that the church said, it is only because we are lazy learners that we don't understand. YEAH RIGHT, my shelf is breaking.
I went through EXACTLY this a couple years ago. I went to my bishop, then stake president, then wrote a letter to the first presidency. The responses were so dishonest ("that's not what was said by past prophets.........") and insulting to my intelligence I had no choice but to finally accept LDS church leadership are very comfortable with dishonesty and gaslighting. I haven't paid tithing since then and only go to church when my family wants to go. I also refuse to accept any callings.
Trust me let it break. It is man made and is just a big game.
@@carsonwilliams2746 But LDS is my entire world, my community my support. If leave the LDS it would be painful. But I am beginning to think maybe God is calling to find the truth about Him and Jesus. It will be tough, but I know there is a God who will help me and sustain me even if the LDS church turns out to be a lie.
I completely understand, but remember, the gospel is true and the Atonement is real, but the Church is made up of fallible and imperfect mortals who make mistakes and have the agency to make wrong choices. Don't turn your back on the Savior over ultimately unimportant disagreements.
Do not forget what the prophet has been saying about Following the Holy Ghost. It's insane that members are struggling with fundamentals. Everything the prophet has said is coming to pass. Follow the Spirit and learn to recognize the Lord's voice in your personal study, and through the brethren. It'll get much harder than it is now.
I just can’t believe I’m hearing LDS members blame Protestants for the LDS priesthood ban . This is ridiculous, I mean do you have a prophet or not? “Hello! McFly, anybody home ? “ SMH
Jacob, is collective witness model your creation? Have you considered writing a book/workbook? I think an in-depth book with models and examples on how to take a question and walk it through the model could help people develop logical reasoning. First, walk through this model for answers to gospel questions and next, now that they have done the work, pray. People nowadays have little knowledge of how to come to a logical conclusion and then go to God with what they have learned. Just a thought. But if you do chose to write one, I’ll buy the first copy!😊
IMO Jacob makes these videos so he can stir up controversy and get clicks.
It’s going to be glorious when the church does end up accepting gay marriage in the temple. Because it’s going to show love and equality for all of Gods children.
It’s also going to be seamless for mental Gymnasts like Jacob, because he will calmly make up a new narrative and then claim the truthfulness of the church! The many changes the church has made have all been for the better. This will be no exception and giving love and respect for ALL of the Lords children will also be for the better.
The prophets aren’t listening to Jacobs thoughts. He’s a common podcaster who spews hate and ignorance hoping to get clicks and make money off of his podcast. The prophets listen to the Lord and when the Lord prompts them to make the change then they will.
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.
11:15 Absolutely correct! We don't practice plural marriage in mortality at this time. But it is still a doctrine that we hold to. My Dad is sealed to two women. He was married to, and sealed to his second Wife after his first Wife died.
I am confused about what doctrine is and isn't. DC132 says god commands polygamy for celestial exaltation. Is this still doctrine? What exactly did the subsequent prophet say that god said about polygamy such that we don't practice it today? Does our church still believe in polygamy but just not practice it? or does our church condemn it? What is the doctrine?
You're definitely onto something.💯 Continue down the rabbit hole and you'll learn that the main church caved to the "powers that be" in order to not lose their wealth and property, and as a result, the devil stepped in. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, as it's not the fault of any members today. It happened many years ago when the true Keyholder, John Taylor, was essentially driven into hiding with a few who were determined (and commanded by our Savior and the Prophet Joseph personally) to keep the Celestial Law alive. He died in exile, but the work carried on in the wilderness, so to speak.
@@savannabarlow8197 So our church DOES STILL believe polygamy is commanded by god?
Where in section 132 does it say plural marriage is required for exaltation?
@@kenedward4585Plural marriage is an exception to the rule. Monogamy is the rule.
I would go back and read section 132 again, and examine it as two parts. Part 1 (3-33) and part 2 (34-66). Part 1 contain truths of eternal marriage, part 2 pertaining to the practice of polygamy. Also paying attention to the language used in the section (mainly the use of the world wife, singular, and not wives, plural, when discussing exaltation.)
I hope that helps.
Great work, thanks!
100% accurate. Nice work Jacob.
The first presidency most certainly stated more than once that the priesthood restriction was doctrine.
We shouldn't be OK with gay civil unions, however the rest of what you said is true.
Why not?
why shouldn't he be? they live in.the United States.the church teachers that we have agency. a civil union is a legal matter Not a moral one.
@jdw24 so do you think the prophet will answer to god for the SEC violations and setting up ghost corporations to hide money?
@jdw24 I can believe a person has legal rights because they live in a country that has the Constitution That guarantees them that. that doesn't mean I have to agree with it as a moral issue.I did not say that because something is legal it is right. I simply said there's a difference between legality and morality.
Spot on. The Family Proclamation tells us to support measures that strengthen the Family.
Sad, however that our current crop of leaders are sending mixed messages in this area.