I didn't think this fit directly into the General Conference thread, but some of these thoughts came from watching GC this past weekend (or two) ago.

Anyways, it made for interesting discussion at home and thought it would here as well.

Thought #1:

What would the Church be like today if Joseph Smith had not been shot in Illinois, but instead lead the Saints to Utah. JS was very liberal by today's standards and did some pretty outrageous things in his time, that would have him labeled as a left wing nut today, such as:

- Gave priesthood to AA.
- Ran for President where his platform was to free slaves
- Had multiple sexual partners
- Made his followers engage in communism for a time (law of consecration)
- Tried to control the banks/money of Mormons
- Rumors that he allowed women to give blessings (priesthood)

How different is the Church today if he was still alive and BY was never prophet? Do we ever have the no AA holding the priesthood (especially since the Church recently threw BY under the bus with that revelation...er...policy?*) issue? What about women and priesthood? Would it be okay nowadays? I know that certain revelations have been changed by the Church that JS received that originally implied women would get the priesthood, but have been changed to "clarify" the revelation.

Thought #2:

My other thought I had was listening to conference and all the talks on LGBT's and the churches stance on the issue. My thoughts drifted back to my dad's day in the Church, when it was taught that AA would NEVER hold the priesthood (at least not until the second coming), the Church wouldn't give AA the discussions, etc. At that time, my dad was a young convert in his late teens (19). He had different attitudes towards AA than the older leaders of the church.

As my dad's generation grew older, and eventually took over the leadership of the church, the stance on AA changed, which culminated with the Church basically calling BY a racist and saying the no priesthood for AA was not revelation at all.

What will happen when my generation takes over the church, and even those younger than me, who grow up more "liberal" in their views of women and the priesthood and LGBT's and temples, marriage, etc? Which Apostle that spoke today will get thrown under the bus then for his revelatio...er...policies?

Interesting stuff, and it will be interesting to see what happens with the Church over the next 50-100 years.

*From the Church website about AA, Brigham Young, and the Priesthood:

"The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans.

"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. 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.

"In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination." (Interesting that here it is just a "policy" while it was taught as doctrine pre-1978)

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-...thood?lang=eng

NOW, this is not a slam on the Church at all. I am a full fledged, fully faithful, member of the Church. I'm in all the way baby. Just some thoughts I've had about what has happened recently with all the political bickering, and with the Church's announcement about AA's and the priesthood and how they are dealing with the whole LGBT and Women and the Priesthood issues.

Any thoughts? Am I a wolf in sheep's clothing?