We are witnessing a second great apostasy

[John Tavner]

Alma 19: 35 And it came to pass that there were many that did believe in their words; and as many as did believe were baptized; and they became a righteous people, and they did establish a church among them.

36 And thus the work of the Lord did commence among the Lamanites; thus the Lord did begin to pour out his Spirit upon them; and we see that his arm is extended to all people who will repent and believe on his name.

[dezNatDefender]

Elija Abel was an octoroon.

That is 100% absolutely a fact. Yes I know what OD2 states-but it is wrong. How do I know he was an octoroon. Because I looked at the actual source document that talks about his baptism and ordination.

And if that isn't enough for you; I'll go to the almighty wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel
Elijah Abel was born in Frederick-Town, Maryland on 25 July 1808 to Delilah Williams, who was of Scotch descent, and Andrew Abel, an Englishman. A grandmother of Elijah was "half white," or Mulatto; his paternal grandfather, Joseph Abel, was a member of the English House of Commons.[1][4][8][3] Thus was Elijah considered to be "Octoroon," or one-eighth African.

Face it Emma, you are subscribing to a racist ideology. The racist ideology which states if someone has a drop of black blood they are black.

Facts don't care about your feelings; you've been reading the wrong history and interpreting it wrong. Joseph Smith NEVER ordained a majority black man to the priesthood.

With that picture you can tell he is white, the entire face is white. Just like I said, octoroons look white with a small amount of negroid features (black hair, wider nose-that's about it).

so..... Joseph still thought a 1/4 or a 1/8th black person was still as black as a 10/10 black person and still gave him the priesthood, you're not really making a case for anything other than the case that Joseph still gave the priesthood to people that he perceived as being black due to having *some* African blood in him.

In this context, it's really not important what *technically* constitutes as black, but what Joseph and Brigham *perceived* and believed to be black.

I don't think you're making the point you think you are.

What matters is their perception at the time, and that perception was that someone with a drop of african blood is still African. Regardless, Joseph was okay with him having the priesthood, but Brigham and those who followed were not okay with a drop of african blood and the ban was instituted not by Joseph but by Brigham and that ban applied to those who had but a trace of African blood.

And you aren't understanding the point either.

There is no record that Joseph Smith said he ordained a black man. You won't find it. Let's get that straight. Joseph Smith never claimed to have ordained a black man. We don't know what Joseph Smith thought about Elijah Abel-only that he did ordain him.

I agree that it is important what JS perceived to be black, 100% agree with that. The problem is that any and every source I can find just infers what Joseph Smith thought about Abel b/c the person reporting from the source claims Abel was black.

I've read the actual source document justification for Abel being ordained (not what other people say, or reported, i.e. the telephone game), but the only actual source that we have. It just states he was an octoroon and that Joseph Smith ordained him-it give nothing in the way of what Joseph Smith thought about Abel (whether he was black or not-it simply states he was an octoroon).

The other 2 instances of actual pure black being ordained were not done by Joseph Smith, one by his brother and the other one is actually very sketchy in the records.

I have a huge problem with history and people reporting it; I learned a long time ago man can do one thing God cannot do and that's rewrite history.

So much of what we "think" is true history is actually not true or it's oral stories or some historian that goes through the source material and then takes his own personal bias and bends the story the way he wants it to go.

We really don't have any information about JS and black and priesthood ordination, we only know what happened. And the only thing we can really state in the historical record is that yes JS ordained Abel to the Priesthood. Abel was indeed 1/8th black. We also know that JS translated the PoGP and in that Holy Scripture it describes the seed of Cain (or blacks as commonly understood at the time) as not having the Priesthood.

If one is dishonest,or lackadaisical, or wants to paint a certain picture with the historical record, one will claim Elijah Abel was black and that JS ordained black men. If one is accurate, one will say JS ordained Abel who was an octoroon. Whether JS considered an octoroon to be black or considered him to be European or something else we do not know.

Just a little more umph to the idea that 1/8th is can legitimately claim their majority heritage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criollo_people
"According to the Casta system, a criollo could have up to 1/8 (one great-grandparent or equivalent) Amerindian ancestry without losing social place"

The Spanish Caste system made allowance that if one was 1/8th not Spanish, one could still claim their heritage as Spanish.

We can confirm that yes, Joseph ordained a man that, by seemingly everyone else in the church was viewed as a straight black man

Regardless of the fact that he never *SAID* he ordained a black man, we know he ordained a man who was apparently universally recognized as a black man by everyone around Joseph Smith. This is important.

I disagree. We extrapolate our current views on race to how we think people thought back in the day but it's just not the case.
--------
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01 ... ntroversy/

When the census began in 1790, the racial categories for the household population were “free white” persons, other “free persons” by color, and “slaves.” Census-takers did not use standard forms in the early censuses.

For 1850-1880, the codes for enumerators were generally white (W), black (B) and mulatto (M). Beginning in 1850, the data item was labeled “color.” In 1870, Chinese (C) and Indian (I) were added. In 1880, the data item was not labeled; it was “whether this person is…” In 1890, “Japanese,” “quadroon” and “octoroon” were added."
----------
It's not so simple as "JS thought he was black". In 1850 the US Census recognized mulattos-i.e. mixed race.

Go to Family Search, look in the 1860 Census record and you will find Elijah Abel listed as mulatto; not black but mulatto.

Clearly he was NOT black; the US government did not consider him black, he did not consider himself black-but 160 years later modern "scholars" and people who want to use him to justify to themselves that JS did not institute the Priesthood ban claim he was black.

The best we can say is that once someone was around 1/8th black, JS considered that they were able to hold the Priesthood; that's a fair and accurate reading of the actions of history. Claiming that JS believed that someone who was 100% (or 50+1%) black was able to hold the Priesthood is a gross, gross extrapolation from one single incident.

[SmallFarm]

The sifting rolls on....

[Kingdom of ZION]

Well....I got through most of it before I just couldnt continue. There is a lot of good stuff to what you are saying. But the bottom line I could gather: you believe the Church is in full blown apostasy because it no longer trumpets its former racist and sexists doctrines? Did I get that right?

I don't buy into God being a racist. He loves all his children. That men like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith lived in a world that tolerated slavery and felt the need to somehow justify it does NOT mean they were preaching the truth that these brothers and sisters are somehow lesser because of the color of their skin or their gender. You will never win me to that line of thinking, and the only people that believe it are racist or sexist and they would be wise to check the pride that will be their downfall.

This is the best. So the Book of Mormon meant what by a curse of dark skin?

What it means is that Joseph Smith was influenced by the times he lived in.

So are you alluding through such an inference is, Joseph changed the Book of Mormon because of the influence of the times in which he lived in. What poppycock!

[Kingdom of ZION]

iwontbackdown wrote: ↑
Mon May 06, 2019 12:07 pm
Male only missionary force
Article of Faith 5 says only men should be called. Females were never called by Joseph or Brigham, not until 1898. Jesus or the early Church never called female missionaries. Why? Because women should be focused on building a family, above all (addressed below), not proselytizing, which only Priesthood holders are allowed to do.
Ministering Program
This program is being run with the Elders and the Relief Society working as equal partners. Co-PPIs are sometimes being done in wards with the RS Presidency and EQ Presidency together. The Relief Society doesn't have the keys to do this!

Sorry, this is silly. There are a multitude of scriptures that use the word "Man" that are obviously meant to apply to the species "man" and not the gender "man". You stretch that scripture to mean what you want it to mean.
All who have the desire are called to serve.
My wife serve a mission and brought forth more fruit than any missionary to every pass through her mission, the Mission President shared this with the mission on multiple occasions. As she was serving God she felt the Spirit come upon her and fill her head to toe multiple times. God approved what she was doing, and you are wrong for suggesting otherwise.

So G_d cannot bless a person because of the desires and sacrifices of the heart (the individual), while/because they are/were not in perfect harmony with correct principle(s)?

[Jonesy]

Just taking a step back, look at all these diverse beliefs. It’s almost overwhelming. I can’t believe I’m the only one that’s right.

I’m kidding! Whatever’s wrong will be made right, and I really do pray that we can all be humble to accept it whatever it is.

[Fiannan]

That men like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith lived in a world that tolerated slavery and felt the need to somehow justify it does NOT mean they were preaching the truth that these brothers and sisters are somehow lesser because of the color of their skin or their gender.

Joseph Smith wasn't a racist - at least not according to everything I've ever read about him, and most especially by looking at his works. Joseph ordained black men to the priesthood. The racism, as part of the institutional Church, did not begin till BY took the reins.

Well, he did fine a black man for marrying a white woman and he did say that blacks and whites should be segregated. I am merely noting that I doubt Joseph Smith would have rebuked Brigham Young.

[Fiannan]

If abortion is taking an innocent human life who has done more speaking to the masses about the evils of abortion, Donald Trump or our Church?

I am not condemning Church leaders, but I am saying that we have no idea what political forces behind the scenes may place pressure on our leaders (threats) if too much is said about social - moral issues. I have from the very beginning questioned the motives for the changes in the Holy Handbook that present birth control in a morally neutral context while earlier Church leaders condemned family limitation in no uncertain terms.

[thestock]

In regards to Blacks and the Priesthood. Here's an interesting interview with Apostle LeGrande Richards.
 Interview with Apostle LeGrand Richards

By Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos

16th August 1978

Church Office Building

(Recorded on Cassette)

WALTERS: On this revelation, of the priesthood to the Negro, I've heard all kinds of stories: I've heard that Joseph Smith appeared; and then I heard another story that Spencer Kimball had, had a concern about this for some time, and simply shared it with the apostles, and they decided that this was the right time to move in that direction. Are any of those stories true, or are they all?

RICHARDS: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it's hard to get leaders that don't have Negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising the money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it. 

He asked each one of us of the Twelve if we would pray - and we did - that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office - individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, you see - so he interviewed each one of us, personally, to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood. 

Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group together, and then we prayed about it in our prayer circle, and then we held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children. And then the next Thursday - we meet every Thursday - the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement - to see how we'd feel about it - and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it - the Twelve and the Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Petersen, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it.

WALTERS: What was the date? Would that have been the first of June, or something?

RICHARDS: That was the first Thursday, I think, in May. [June?] At least that's about when it was. And then after we all voted in favor of it, we called another meeting for the next morning, Friday morning, at seven o'clock, of all the other General Authorities - that includes the Seventies' Quorum and the Patriarch and the Presiding Bishopric, and it was presented to them, and there were a few of the brethren that were out presiding then in the missions, and so the Twelve were appointed to interview each one of them.


It appears that LeGrande Richards didn't think it was a revelation and he was there. This is very contemporary information. Much better than peoples hearsay or 3rd hand remembrances.

I have to disagree here. If they truly counseled individually and collectively as a governing unit and prayed solo and together in prayer circle etc to know the mind of the Lord on this matter and felt inspired to move forward in this direction (this is a HUGE change).....I can absolutely believe the Holy Ghost led them to the correct decision.

I no longer believe any of the Church leaders have visions or angelic visitations (I used to think they saw Christ, don't think that anymore) but its even more impressive to think they can lead this enormous world-wide organization relying wholly upon the Spirit and their own judgment.

[thestock]

dezNatDefender:

You actually make EmmaLee's point for her. It matters not if YOU think the ideology of a drop of black blood equating someone to a full-blooded negro is racist or not (it is).....the only thing that matters is that in Joseph Smith's day THAT was the prevailing attitude at the time. So for Joseph to ordain someone who, at his time and in his culture, is viewed to be black, then that is the only thing that matters. He defied the racism of his time and did something bold, and, if true, he deserves credit for that.

[thestock]

Well....I got through most of it before I just couldnt continue. There is a lot of good stuff to what you are saying. But the bottom line I could gather: you believe the Church is in full blown apostasy because it no longer trumpets its former racist and sexists doctrines? Did I get that right?

I don't buy into God being a racist. He loves all his children. That men like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith lived in a world that tolerated slavery and felt the need to somehow justify it does NOT mean they were preaching the truth that these brothers and sisters are somehow lesser because of the color of their skin or their gender. You will never win me to that line of thinking, and the only people that believe it are racist or sexist and they would be wise to check the pride that will be their downfall.

This is the best. So the Book of Mormon meant what by a curse of dark skin?

What it means is that Joseph Smith was influenced by the times he lived in.

So are you alluding through such an inference is, Joseph changed the Book of Mormon because of the influence of the times in which he lived in. What poppycock!

How can the person who produced the Book of Mormon change it? That's like saying George Lucas changed Star Wars because he was influenced by his time....

[dezNatDefender]

That men like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith lived in a world that tolerated slavery and felt the need to somehow justify it does NOT mean they were preaching the truth that these brothers and sisters are somehow lesser because of the color of their skin or their gender.

Joseph Smith wasn't a racist - at least not according to everything I've ever read about him, and most especially by looking at his works. Joseph ordained black men to the priesthood. The racism, as part of the institutional Church, did not begin till BY took the reins.

Well, he did fine a black man for marrying a white woman and he did say that blacks and whites should be segregated. I am merely noting that I doubt Joseph Smith would have rebuked Brigham Young.

Yes thank you. If you actually read JS writings you will find that he was brilliant and had a grasp of the issues the likes of which most people don't have. Outside of him being a Prophet, he was one of the great thinkers of his time. The guy was a genius.

He recognized it wasn't so simple as black vs. white. His writing demonstrate that and his ordination of Abel demonstrates that. JS never ordained a majority black man to the Priesthood, he did ordain a majority white man. Abel wasn't black, he was mulatto-the US government recognized him as such, he recognized himself as such and it wasn't until after the Civil War (and Abel's death) that Joseph F. Smith started to disparage his name.

Again no one has answered my question . . .at what point does black blood cease to label someone as black (which is probably the exact same question JS was trying to answer).

BY went much farther, but there is a reason why he did, an incident happened in Winter's Quarter (I believe). IIRC, on the trek west a black man was accused of raping a white woman that was close to BY-or something to that effect. From that point forward, he was rabidly anti-black.

[sandman45]

You left out polygamy, blood atonement, and Adam God.

Adam is a God

[iwontbackdown]

I don't believe at all that Joseph Smith knowingly or willingly ordained a black man to the Priesthood. Even if he did, he was defying his own proclamation in his 1836 proclamation to Oliver that only a "great power" would be able to overturn the Priesthood ban. It would have been a mistake and I forgive him for it.

I really believe this boils down to people and their modern brainwashing about racism. They are following what the modern media and world teaches, rather than following the pure doctrine that Joseph taught and received through revelation through the Book of Abraham.

Am I to believe that 6,000+ years of established history of Priesthood restriction on blacks, Joseph's own words on the subject in the Abolitionism letter, and the consistent obedience to this restriction by all the prophets following Joseph Smith, up to and including Spencer W Kimball is all to be disregarded because Joseph ordained a single man who had less than 20% black blood?

Bullocks.

I think those of you who have twisted yourself into a pretzel to make this logic work need to re-evaluate yourself and your obedience to God's eternal principles rather than your addiction to CNN and Hollywood's opinions on the subject.

[thestock]

Am I to believe that 6,000+ years of established history of Priesthood restriction on blacks, Joseph's own words on the subject in the Abolitionism letter, and the consistent obedience to this restriction by all the prophets following Joseph Smith, up to and including Spencer W Kimball is all to be disregarded because Joseph ordained a single man who had less than 20% black blood?

No. You should disregard it because it is an exclusionary and unfair and improper and wrong doctrine that eliminates blessings of the eternal realm based on the color of one's skin and supposedly based on what they may or may not have done in the premortal existence, which thing we could never know anything about for those people individually.

So in short, you should reject it because it is evil and wrong. Sometimes our leaders get it wrong. I know, that hurts your world view a bit......but if you put so much trust in the arm of flesh that you are willing to follow them into the depths of hatred that is racism.....well then, what am I fond of hearing so often?.....you have been deceived by Satan. .

[iwontbackdown]

Support of Transgenderism and Nihilism
Elder Uchdorf wrote an article, "What is Truth" in The March 2017 Friend telling the parable of the Elephant to describe how it's impossible to know a person's true identity. An accompanying column described that this was about transgender sexuality and helping children to understand this. Putting this into a children's magazine, of all places, is sickeningly repulsive.

I looked up the Friend article from March of 2017 and couldn't find anything about gender or sexuality. Can you give a link to this "accompanying column?"

I've looked at the PDF scan of the March 2017 Friend. It's not the same as the physical magazine. I know for sure that they moved Elder Uchtdorf's story to the front of the magazine. It was near the end in the print copy. Unless there was another magazine that included the story of the elephant, someone will need to find the physical copy to see what I saw there. It included an accompanying column (from the editors?) discussing how children can use the elephant story to better understand what transgender children are going through at school. I swear this was in the original copy I read.

[iwontbackdown]

Am I to believe that 6,000+ years of established history of Priesthood restriction on blacks, Joseph's own words on the subject in the Abolitionism letter, and the consistent obedience to this restriction by all the prophets following Joseph Smith, up to and including Spencer W Kimball is all to be disregarded because Joseph ordained a single man who had less than 20% black blood?

No. You should disregard it because it is an exclusionary and unfair and improper and wrong doctrine that eliminates blessings of the eternal realm based on the color of one's skin and supposedly based on what they may or may not have done in the premortal existence, which thing we could never know anything about for those people individually.

So in short, you should reject it because it is evil and wrong. Sometimes our leaders get it wrong. I know, that hurts your world view a bit......but if you put so much trust in the arm of flesh that you are willing to follow them into the depths of hatred that is racism.....well then, what am I fond of hearing so often?.....you have been deceived by Satan. .

Sorry, I'm going to trust 6,000 years of the words of the prophets in all of the standard works on the subject. It is you and others that have only recently decided by your own choice that their words are "evil". You have to reject all of the Scriptures and most of the modern LDS prophets to justify this statement. Gods ways are not our ways, it takes humility to realize that.

[AnEnemyHathDoneThis]

The elephant article's accompanying column was in the Ensign, March of the same year. I don't see this as pro-transgender, it actually seems to me to be an aid to teach children against it.

[Robin Hood]

Am I to believe that 6,000+ years of established history of Priesthood restriction on blacks, Joseph's own words on the subject in the Abolitionism letter, and the consistent obedience to this restriction by all the prophets following Joseph Smith, up to and including Spencer W Kimball is all to be disregarded because Joseph ordained a single man who had less than 20% black blood?

No. You should disregard it because it is an exclusionary and unfair and improper and wrong doctrine that eliminates blessings of the eternal realm based on the color of one's skin and supposedly based on what they may or may not have done in the premortal existence, which thing we could never know anything about for those people individually.

So in short, you should reject it because it is evil and wrong. Sometimes our leaders get it wrong. I know, that hurts your world view a bit......but if you put so much trust in the arm of flesh that you are willing to follow them into the depths of hatred that is racism.....well then, what am I fond of hearing so often?.....you have been deceived by Satan. .

This is nonsense in my view.

[thestock]

Am I to believe that 6,000+ years of established history of Priesthood restriction on blacks, Joseph's own words on the subject in the Abolitionism letter, and the consistent obedience to this restriction by all the prophets following Joseph Smith, up to and including Spencer W Kimball is all to be disregarded because Joseph ordained a single man who had less than 20% black blood?

No. You should disregard it because it is an exclusionary and unfair and improper and wrong doctrine that eliminates blessings of the eternal realm based on the color of one's skin and supposedly based on what they may or may not have done in the premortal existence, which thing we could never know anything about for those people individually.

So in short, you should reject it because it is evil and wrong. Sometimes our leaders get it wrong. I know, that hurts your world view a bit......but if you put so much trust in the arm of flesh that you are willing to follow them into the depths of hatred that is racism.....well then, what am I fond of hearing so often?.....you have been deceived by Satan. .

This is nonsense in my view.

Keep building that eternal family Bishop.....unless of course they are black, right?

[iwontbackdown]

The elephant article's accompanying column was in the Ensign, March of the same year. I don't see this as pro-transgender, it actually seems to me to be an aid to teach children against it.

You found it. Thanks!

Here is what is quoted from the Ensign accompanyment:

"Is an elephant more like a rope or a tree? In this month’s Friend, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, tells the tale of six blind travelers who try to answer this question. But no one agrees, since each traveler can only base his opinion on the part of the elephant he happens to touch. So it’s all pretty confusing.

Some of the most confusing questions our children face today have to do with gender. What makes us male or female? Is gender an innate part of who we are, or is it more changeable? Why does gender even matter?

“We know some things but not everything,” President Uchtdorf explains. “But there is someone who sees all things clearly. There is a source of truth that is complete and correct. That source is our wise and all-knowing Heavenly Father.”

This month’s Friend has stories and activities to start a fun and natural family discussion about being a girl or being a boy:"
https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2017/0 ... ies_title1

I see this with the Elephant story sowing confusion. It's clear to me that Elder Uchtdorf is telling us that we "cannot know everything" and that can include someone's true gender, that people on earth are incapable to judge someone's true gender, and that only God really knows what it is. This goes against "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" that declares that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.". Gender is unchangeable from the premortal existence to now and our physical bodies manifest that identity.

All you need to tell your children is that there are boys and girls. Period.

Furthermore, the statement, "We know some things but not everything" goes against the foundational principles of this church, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." James 1:5. "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." Moroni 10:5.

We CAN know the truth of all things.

[Robin Hood]

Am I to believe that 6,000+ years of established history of Priesthood restriction on blacks, Joseph's own words on the subject in the Abolitionism letter, and the consistent obedience to this restriction by all the prophets following Joseph Smith, up to and including Spencer W Kimball is all to be disregarded because Joseph ordained a single man who had less than 20% black blood?

No. You should disregard it because it is an exclusionary and unfair and improper and wrong doctrine that eliminates blessings of the eternal realm based on the color of one's skin and supposedly based on what they may or may not have done in the premortal existence, which thing we could never know anything about for those people individually.

So in short, you should reject it because it is evil and wrong. Sometimes our leaders get it wrong. I know, that hurts your world view a bit......but if you put so much trust in the arm of flesh that you are willing to follow them into the depths of hatred that is racism.....well then, what am I fond of hearing so often?.....you have been deceived by Satan. .

This is nonsense in my view.

Keep building that eternal family Bishop.....unless of course they are black, right?

The problem is you are looking at this through a narrow lens. God sees the big picture and has a reason for everything.
As I said previously, there have been times in history where certain groups have been excluded or included according to God's instruction.
It's a pity you weren't around to set him straight.

[justme]

The elephant article's accompanying column was in the Ensign, March of the same year. I don't see this as pro-transgender, it actually seems to me to be an aid to teach children against it.

You found it. Thanks!

Here is what is quoted from the Ensign accompanyment:

"Is an elephant more like a rope or a tree? In this month’s Friend, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, tells the tale of six blind travelers who try to answer this question. But no one agrees, since each traveler can only base his opinion on the part of the elephant he happens to touch. So it’s all pretty confusing.

Some of the most confusing questions our children face today have to do with gender. What makes us male or female? Is gender an innate part of who we are, or is it more changeable? Why does gender even matter?

“We know some things but not everything,” President Uchtdorf explains. “But there is someone who sees all things clearly. There is a source of truth that is complete and correct. That source is our wise and all-knowing Heavenly Father.”

This month’s Friend has stories and activities to start a fun and natural family discussion about being a girl or being a boy:"
https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2017/0 ... ies_title1

I see this with the Elephant story sowing confusion. It's clear to me that Elder Uchtdorf is telling us that we "cannot know everything" and that can include someone's true gender, that people on earth are incapable to judge someone's true gender, and that only God really knows what it is. This goes against "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" that declares that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.". Gender is unchangeable from the premortal existence to now and our physical bodies manifest that identity.

All you need to tell your children is that there are boys and girls. Period.

Nope. Period.

Furthermore, the statement, "We know some things but not everything" goes against the foundational principles of this church, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." James 1:5. "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." Moroni 10:5.

We CAN know the truth of all things.

[Fiannan]

The elephant analogy has been used to illustrate moral relativism in philosophy discussions for quite some time.

[larsenb]

The elephant analogy has been used to illustrate moral relativism in philosophy discussions for quite some time.

Not just moral relativism, but how our view of the world is constrained by our preconceptions, our current perceptions and their interpretations and by our habitually narrow focus. This is our 'natural' state, which takes effort and incentive to break out of.