I barely have the patience to respond to this garbage, especially in light of my specifically having said:

It's a "whopper" and "self-serving" logic that leaves me with questionable intellectual honesty, eh? Gee, that's not overwrought drama language. How could I possibly have misjudged you.

I believe there are many hard-to-understand doctrines/events in scripture and church history whose full purpose and meaning can only be discovered by revelation. You're welcome to disagree with that hypothesis--I won't accuse you of whopping, self-serving, intellectual dishonesty--but I think there's solid support for it in scripture.

The priesthood ban is just one of these. You can be the most brilliant man to ever walk the earth, with all the learning and research tools that the 21st century has to offer, and still not discover the purposes of God.

Remember, the ban was rescinded by revelation. It wasn't a bunch of scholars who got together and persuaded Kimball and Co. that it needed to be removed. Instead, it came by pleading and petition of many prophets throughout several decades (assuming the DOM book is to be believed).

If you think you can figure it out, more power to you. If somehow that puts your mind at ease and makes your testimony easier to bear, more power to you. I think it's a misplaced notion. But I won't actually say so until I start hearing folks saying they think the church ought to accommodate that misplaced notion, to the extent of getting quite nasty.

Tex please reconcile:

with

It seems you are saying that God won't reveal through scholarship, but people may resort to whatever they wish.

And then you elevate your ability to reason above scholarship. And revelation above that.

LOL.

"Say what you will about national socialism, dude. At least it's an ethos."

Hugh B. Brown taught that revelation could come through scholarship.

Ironically, a little more research would shed some more light on this topic. The DOM bio is a great start, but you most definitely fudging on the facts when you say that there was "pleading by many prophets over several decades".

Such research would lead you to discover that the church came very close recently to issuing a formal apology. You may also discover that top church leaders are much less likely (if ever) to say ("God must have had his reasons"). Now we are getting quotes like this:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...232679,00.html

Notice the conspicuous absence of "We don't know why God did it".

And yet Tex sits around waiting for a revelation from God that would overturn the folklore.

Perhaps "pleading" is too strong a word. The DOM book makes it clear that McKay did ask, while also noting that both Grant and Lee felt that a revelation was required to change it (as opposed to simple fiat).

But I don't want to wade too far back into the blacks/priesthood tall grass. We've been over this territory a thousand times already and it's redundant.

If we could return to the original topic ... I'd rather to stick with the ban as just an example of broader concept: that understanding the whereto's and the whyfor's is unnecessary for a strong testimony. Or further, that spending disproportionate focus on those things (in the noble name of "inoculation") can actually weaken faith.

Your thesis here, if I understand it correctly (I'm trying to be fair here), is that more scholarship, more information, more research can only be a good thing. Beyond that, you believe it is inevitable anyway, due to the speedy methods of disseminating knowledge these days. Thus, the church should not only accommodate, but facilitate.

My point is and has always been that such is fine for those who want it. But in the grand scheme of faith and testimony, it plays a near insignificant role (or ought to). A man's spiritual progression simply should not have any foundation on the details behind the priesthood ban, or any other controversial problem in scripture or church history. And I don't blame the church, nor do I think others should, for putting (relatively) minimal effort in facilitating it.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.