Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

latterdayteancum

Blacks And The Priesthood

Recommended Posts

It isn't racial. It is biblical and theogically correct. You aren't trying to see things through God's perspective you are all about the world. You can't serve God and Mammon

Either God is no respecter of persons, or He isn't. Supposedly all are alike unto God, but here you are telling us they aren't.

That's a shame that Johnny Rotten's wife experienced that.

According to your narrowed and biased and predetermined mind set. You haven't taken this to the Lord have you?

Share this post


Link to post

When the topic becomes too clear (racism in early church leaders) the only defense the devout has is to spew such overarching and non-specific statements:

It isn't racial. It is biblical and theogically correct. You aren't trying to see things through God's perspective you are all about the world. You can't serve God and Mammon

The world's perspective... It is amazing the kinds of things people will justify in the name of 'God's perspective... Why are the alternatives so horribly difficult to imagine ?

Share this post


Link to post

According to your narrowed and biased and predetermined mind set. You haven't taken this to the Lord have you?

Unfortunately, it wasn't predetermined. I said the same things you just did over many years, and I sincerely regret having rationalized racism, especially racism that cannot even be defended doctrinally from the scriptures.

Share this post


Link to post

When the topic becomes too clear (racism in early church leaders) the only defense the devout has is to spew such overarching and non-specific statements:

It isn't racial. It is biblical and theogically correct. You aren't trying to see things through God's perspective you are all about the world. You can't serve God and Mammon

The world's perspective... It is amazing the kinds of things people will justify in the name of 'God's perspective... Why are the alternatives so horribly difficult to imagine ?

I have absolutely nothing against any race of people and I would allow my children to marry outside of their race if the Lord was in charge of their union.

So I can imagine all sorts of things and I respect all people of all races. We have several inter-racially married couples in our ward. I treat them the way I treat anyone. But if you are speaking about what the Lord wants, it is a whole other ball game.

Listen to the prophets.

Share this post


Link to post

I am also convinced of the following:

1) Whatever the true reasons for the ban, the explanations given by various people, including Presidents of the Church, were speculative attempts to explain it. Thus, any honest critic, should such ever appear, will make a clear distinction between the two things and not attempt to conflate them. All the evidence shows that, from an early time, the ban was supported by post hoc explanations that were not offered as revealed truth.

2) While the ban was in force, the only proper thing for any Latter-day Saint to do was to obey it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Why would a prophet, seer and revelator have to speculate on a subject that would effect so many people of that race?

I guess the same reason why a mormon prophet, seer and revelator would need to speculate that Hoffman was an honest man...

Anyhow, why did Elijah Abel, a faithful black mormon missionary and seventy, have this priesthood until he died in 1885 if he was cursed. This man baptized and confirmed members of the church for many years?

Share this post


Link to post

I have absolutely nothing against any race of people and I would allow my children to marry outside of their race if the Lord was in charge of their union.

So I can imagine all sorts of things and I respect all people of all races. We have several inter-racially married couples in our ward. I treat them the way I treat anyone. But if you are speaking about what the Lord wants, it is a whole other ball game.

Listen to the prophets.

Jesus wants me to be a bigot, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post

Can't trump that - 'listen to the prophets'

Anyways, I have to conclude (thought noone said it directly) that the Mormon God is a racist one...

Share this post


Link to post

I have absolutely nothing against any race of people and I would allow my children to marry outside of their race if the Lord was in charge of their union.

So I can imagine all sorts of things and I respect all people of all races. We have several inter-racially married couples in our ward. I treat them the way I treat anyone. But if you are speaking about what the Lord wants, it is a whole other ball game.

Listen to the prophets.

Jesus wants me to be a bigot, apparently.

Get a nap junior. You just don't seem mature enough for this subject of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

Can't trump that - 'listen to the prophets'

Anyways, I have to conclude (thought noone said it directly) that the Mormon God is a racist one...

That seems to be the implication, doesn't it?

Stop the namecalling now, all of you. We especially don't like it when you are involving God. ~ Mod

Share this post


Link to post

I am also convinced of the following:

1) Whatever the true reasons for the ban, the explanations given by various people, including Presidents of the Church, were speculative attempts to explain it. Thus, any honest critic, should such ever appear, will make a clear distinction between the two things and not attempt to conflate them. All the evidence shows that, from an early time, the ban was supported by post hoc explanations that were not offered as revealed truth.

2) While the ban was in force, the only proper thing for any Latter-day Saint to do was to obey it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Why would a prophet, seer and revelator have to speculate on a subject that would effect so many people of that race?

I guess the same reason why a mormon prophet, seer and revelator would need to speculate that Hoffman was an honest man...

Anyhow, why did Elijah Abel, a faithful black mormon missionary and seventy, have this priesthood until he died in 1885 if he was cursed. This man baptized and confirmed members of the church for many years?

Everyone, leader or member or child in the church will make their way through this life's experiences and learn and grow. Even Christ learn he obedience by things He suffered.

Are we all greater than He?

What was given to one man wasn't to be given to all at the time. Accept it and move on.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe it was a revelation from God.

I like the line from the Thurl Bailey fireside that: "Your people were not ready and our people were not ready".

I agree with this line of thinking.

Rubbish. If that reasoning is to be accepted, I would have an awfully difficult time explaining Christ's teachings during his ministry. If members of the restored church, the overwhelming majority of whom grew up in the U.S. with our (at least philosophical) commitment to racial equality, were not ready to receive doctrine from God on equality, then the Jews of the new testament certainly were not ready for what Christ taught. Moreover, how can you argue that the people were ready for the doctrine of polygamy but were not ready for blacks to receive the priesthood??? I think polygamy caused way more persecution against the church than giving blacks the priesthood ever would have. The subscription to the idea that God (not church leaders) was the decision maker behind the doctrine on not giving blacks the priesthood is really a refusal to accept the fallibility of leaders. Conservatives want to be able to keep believing that leaders should not be questioned because it is way more convenient not to have to think things through and take them with a grain of salt. As best as I can tell, with the limited information I have, leaders themselves (such as Mark E. Peterson and Brigham Young) personally had racist views. To shift the explanation to a supposedly unprepared general membership of the church is merely an attempt shield leaders from their own human frailty. Thank goodness GBH is more enlightened on the subject of race (even though his loyalty to dead prophets apparently prevents him from admitting their error).

I guess I'd like to hear the answer to this question: Who exactly was not ready for the doctrine that blacks could be given the priesthood? As far as I can tell, the answer as of the 1950s and 1960s certainly was not "the general membership of the church." I imagine the overwhelming majority of church members would have accepted such a doctrine (had it been preached from the top) had it arrived even as early as the mid 1800s.

It is the church's LEADERS whom the conservatives hold as being enlightened. They should be ahead of the times, not behind them. If the general population of the U.S. had accepted a constitutional amendment giving equality to blacks as early as the post-civil war era, why in the freak would it have taken "enlightened" church leaders until 1978 to realize that God operates on the same principle of racial equality and non-discrimination?

The most plausible explanation for this is clearly that past leaders erred. If one can't even accept that as a possibility, then he is on shaky ground indeed. Was it not Brigham Young himself who stated that he is so afraid that church members would blindly follow their leaders that they would be led into error? Why should we be so afraid of criticizing doctrinal positions taught by our leaders if we disagree? We don't have to lose respect for them, and we can still hold ourselves to high standards.

Well apparently SWK decided to make it a matter of fasting and prayer. As I said before, IMHO, the revelation could have come sooner, if both the brethren and the body of the church had made it a matter of fasting and prayer earlier.

I think it should be noted that the brethren in 1970 were primarily a parochial group who grew up in Utah, Arizona and Idaho. The church had made great strides with converts in the South during the 1960s and 70s. Having lived through this period (I am almost 54), I know that the Black race by themselves and with their own leaders found a voice and a movement that resulted in a much better appreciation of them as men by both their supporters and detractors. These factors, along with the Temple under construction in Brazil, conjoined to bring the matter to SWK's attention.

I think that all four points made on latterdayteancum's blog have merit.

BRMcC is reported as saying everything he understood on the matter changed with that revelation. Obviously, SWK was ahead of some of the Brethren. People are people, we all have room to grow, and none of us are the same people we were in 1970.

Share this post


Link to post

Can't trump that - 'listen to the prophets'

Anyways, I have to conclude (thought noone said it directly) that the Mormon God is a racist one...

The biblical one is anyway. I heard a preaching on a christian radio station where the preacher specifically spoke against inter-racial marriage. He claimed it was not bibilically sound doctrine to inter-marry. So I guess it isn't just the Mormon God, but God.

Share this post


Link to post

Either God is no respecter of persons, or He isn't. Supposedly all are alike unto God, but here you are telling us they aren't.

That's a shame that Johnny Rotten's wife experienced that.

Okay, I'm slow...but what does the former lead singer of the Sex Pistols have to do with the Priesthood?!?

Share this post


Link to post

As a TBM my stance is this:

Until the Lord reveals otherwise I am going to have faith in the current position of the Church that the revelation to not extend the Priesthood to blacks was of God. There are many legitimate reasons why God would have revealed this that do not involve racist motivations. Many of these have been spelled out on this thread.

To those that believe the Church is false it is obvious that this is just another topic to add to your anti-mormon agenda. So enjoy to your heart's content.

To members of the Church that feel this revelation was of man, please be humble and realize this is your personal opinion. Because you do not hold the keys of the kingdom and do not have the prophetic mantle of the ones you point the finger at your claims can go no father than personal opinion. And if you have true faith in the restoration of the gospel I would be careful because it is only your opinion that stands in the way of you fulfilling this scripture:

"Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them."

Share this post


Link to post

One can state his or her opinion on this matter, but the truth is, whatever the answer is, we should not believe it or disbelieve it due to our sensibilities, but seek the truth.

I don't know why blacks were denied the priesthood for so many years. I also don't let it bother me. The Lord can grant me His priesthood or not as He sees fit. But concerning the 1978 revelation, if I didn't believe it to be a revelation, I wouldn't be a member of the church.

I've heard the blacks descended from Cain theory for years, but have never really cared one way or the other who anyone is descended from. We know that some were more valient than others, and it's almost easy to guess who the less valient ones may have been, and it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Some folks just seem to be born bad, despite the best treatment and upbringing possible. Others seem to be born to excel (like Hugh Nibley -- everyone in his family knew he was gifted). I've known white folks raised in good homes who have been vipers, and black folks born into bad homes who were some of the greatest people I've ever seen. The viper might have been descended from the apostle Peter himself, and the black man may have been descended from Cain, Hannibal, or both. It doesn't matter.

Nowhere are we told to judge people via their lineage or by the color of their skin.

The 1978 revelation, interestingly, never talked about a reversal of doctrine, but simply that that time had come when all men should have the blessings of the priesthood. That shouldn't be too surprising as God is One who works via dispensations, where often the first becomes last and the last becomes first.

One should also not become angry at someone else for their beliefs. If someone believes something you don't, understand why that person believes the way they do and talk it out. The elder who hadn't given it much thought but believed blacks may not have been valient probably got that notion from someone else who, in turn, got it from someone even further up. Brigham Young himself may have believed it, but lots of people believed stupid things back then, even prophets.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know whether God intended for blacks to be banned in the first place, but here is an interesting thought by Elder Oaks. He seems to say that the ban was of God but for undiscloded reasons. It is a human weakness to try and make up a reason when none is given.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide reasons for the ban. The reasons they gave were not accurate:

...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.[6]

(http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Blacks_and_the_priesthood#endnote_oaks1)

Share this post


Link to post
The biblical one is anyway. I heard a preaching on a christian radio station where the preacher specifically spoke against inter-racial marriage. He claimed it was not bibilically sound doctrine to inter-marry. So I guess it isn't just the Mormon God, but God.

Nah, I'd call that poor interpretation skills. Usually arguments like that have a sketchy use of "unequally yoked." Scripturally I don't find much backing with opposition to interracial and more (far more) for interreligious.

Johnny, though I usually do disagree with you, there are a few things I would agree with.

â??We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without questionâ? (Marriage and Divorceâ? in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p.144).

I taught this lesson (I omitted this offensive quote) last year to my young men. Moreover as a young man I was taught this and more, growing up in the late 70â??s early 80â??s.

I do think that this was more appropriate for the seventies. It wasn't an easy time for interracial couples or multiracial people...though it was in the first beginnings of getting better. As of now, I'd agree, things have changed and race isn't the big issue that it once was...it grows less significant as the population of multiracial people expand, there's a change in the make up of U.S. racially (for example, the number of children under the age of five who have minority status). On the same note I wouldn't call this institutionalized...

My wife while serving, several years ago, in the young womenâ??s presidency helped plan a fireside that taught that one should not marry outside of your own race. It brought my wife to tears. She is the product of a multiracial marriage and is part of a multiracial marriage.

This is where I'd agree. I would find such a lesson inappropriate and am glad to say that I can't remember ever having one. Then again the areas I've lived have often had a good number of interracial couples and multiracial people...including my family. If I married someone part asian, I'd have every continent (excluding australia and antarctica) in my immediate family.

I would find no need to agree with that lesson, and in fact if I was asked to help plan it, I would either say that I couldn't due to strong personal disagreements or have a lesson they very much did not expect. There would be no way in hades that I would generally disclaim mixed marriages or relationships, the majority of my family owes its existance to it...including the cutie as my avatar. It's not being worldly, it's knowing what I've experienced and coming to the sound realization that race is something we decide upon as a definition. I think what is more important in a relationship is understanding culture and the ability to move with them...not having those becoming conflicting factors in a relationship. Culture can be as small as when you brush your teeth or as large as how you view extended family...it's not simply on racial terms.

With luv,

BD

Share this post


Link to post

Can't trump that - 'listen to the prophets'

Anyways, I have to conclude (thought noone said it directly) that the Mormon God is a racist one...

The biblical one is anyway. I heard a preaching on a christian radio station where the preacher specifically spoke against inter-racial marriage. He claimed it was not bibilically sound doctrine to inter-marry. So I guess it isn't just the Mormon God, but God.

Finally someone with the heart to admit it. I agree, not just the Mormon God, but the God of the old testiment as well. Regardless, it is your same God.

So the question is answered. You believe God is racist and I believe the early prophets (both in the bible and early LDS church) let culture overshadow the fundamentally moral position that any God, who I hope to believe in, would have.

I've heard that "God plays to the people's culture" - fine. He lets them to wierd things when they wish - fine. But just admit that this racist part of your past is one of those messed up, wierd things and apologize and dissociate yourself completely from it (together with polygamy).

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know whether God intended for blacks to be banned in the first place, but here is an interesting thought by Elder Oaks. He seems to say that the ban was of God but for undiscloded reasons. It is a human weakness to try and make up a reason when none is given.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide reasons for the ban. The reasons they gave were not accurate:

...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.[6]

(http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Blacks_and_the_priesthood#endnote_oaks1)

Although I have respect for Elder Oaks, I must strongly disagree with him on this point. Tell me to do something, and I may or may not do it. But if you can convince me through reason that I should do it, I will. God is a God of reason. The glory of God is intelligence. When we aspire to become like God, I do not believe that we do so by simply obeying blindly. Few things are as dangerous as unintuitive commandments, in my opinion. It's one thing if the Spirit says to me, "Turn left, not right, on your way to work this morning," and I don't know why. If I believe it is a true revelation, I'll follow it even though I don't know the reasons. But if God would command that I deny some privilege or status to someone merely because of their race, I would be highly suspect and would need to know the reason before I would obey. God says in the D&C, "Come let us reason together." When Nephi was commanded to kill Laban, God gave him an explanation because the killing of a human being was normally considered wrong. Likewise, racism is wrong, and I would expect God to give an explanation before he commanded anything that at least had the appearance of racism. Perhaps it is admirable (or not) that Dallin is able to have very blind faith. But he should not expect all of us to live to that same standard. The scriptures link faith with evidence. I have never believed that God expects us to simply believe without any evidence. Although he does not always spell everything out to us in complete detail, he generally provides us enough detail so that we can make reasoned decisions between right and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

I think President Hinckley's explanation is best when he said, that not thinking those with a

different skin color were worthy of the Priesthood, was a matter of arrogance. That makes

perfect sense, considering ours is a God of Love and not of intolerance.

Share this post


Link to post

You believe God is racist and I believe the early prophets (both in the bible and early LDS church) let culture overshadow the fundamentally moral position that any God, who I hope to believe in, would have.

The next poster who has to stoop to flaming accusations about God being racist to make his or her point is going to have a vacation on the suspension list. This is the last warning.

Share this post


Link to post

You believe God is racist and I believe the early prophets (both in the bible and early LDS church) let culture overshadow the fundamentally moral position that any God, who I hope to believe in, would have.

The next poster who has to stoop to flaming accusations about God being racist to make his or her point is going to have a vacation on the suspension list. This is the last warning.

I certainly was not accusing God of being racist (certainly not flamingly) In fact my beliefs are quite the contrary. Suspend away.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately I am late for class so I will have to look up the actual reference later. However, I seem to remember the the NAACP threatened to file a major lawsuit against the LDS church badk in the mid to late 70's for the racist use of Cencus records. The church if I remember correctly was using Cencus records to help them determine fully the race of people thereby continuing to deny them the priesthood or temple reccomend. For example, I am a white person and you would say so just by walking past me on the street. But let's say that several generations ago, a black person was in my family tree somewhere. Prior to 1978, if I was a mamber of the church, because of that minute amount of african heritage I had in me, I would have been denied a TR and ifr I was a male I would have been denied the priesthood.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately I am late for class so I will have to look up the actual reference later. However, I seem to remember the the NAACP threatened to file a major lawsuit against the LDS church badk in the mid to late 70's for the racist use of Cencus records. The church if I remember correctly was using Cencus records to help them determine fully the race of people thereby continuing to deny them the priesthood or temple reccomend. For example, I am a white person and you would say so just by walking past me on the street. But let's say that several generations ago, a black person was in my family tree somewhere. Prior to 1978, if I was a mamber of the church, because of that minute amount of african heritage I had in me, I would have been denied a TR and ifr I was a male I would have been denied the priesthood.

I thought that was in the mid to late 60's...but I can't remember the reference either

With luv,

BD

Share this post


Link to post

Guacho quoting Elder Oaks.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide reasons for the ban. The reasons they gave were not accurate:

...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

Elder Oaks points out that the Lord may not have given all the reasons for the ban. Can Elder Oaks even point us to the scriptural or revelatory imputus that allegedly came from God that instituted the ban in the first place? The leaders not only don't know the reasons for the ban, they don't even know how it started.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×