Jump to content

Archived

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

latterdayteancum

Blacks And The Priesthood

Recommended Posts

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.

Then apparently he's got his wish.

There are many kinds of bigotry. If you imagine yourself a better, wiser, more open, more loving person that President Kimball, then that just goes to show the extent of your imagination. I would infinitely prefer that my children grow up with his attitudes than with yours.

I am fully comfortable with his wise counsel that people choose marriage partners with whom they have as much as possible in common. I will freely share that counsel with my own children, who are the children of a racially mixed marriage.

Regards,

Pahoran

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.

Then apparently he's got his wish.

There are many kinds of bigotry. If you imagine yourself a better, wiser, more open, more loving person that President Kimball, then that just goes to show the extent of your imagination. I would infinitely prefer that my children grow up with his attitudes than with yours.

I am fully comfortable with his wise counsel that people choose marriage partners with whom they have as much as possible in common. I will freely share that counsel with my own children, who are the children of a racially mixed marriage.

Regards,

Pahoran

I have not commented one way or the other on President Kimball, his goodness, wisdom, openness, or love. Nor have I commented on his position on racially mixed marriages. Please confine your insulting remarks to things I've actually said.

Share this post


Link to post
My wife and I are in a multiracial marriage. My wife has been present in church meetings when racist discussions occur, unfortunately it is always wrapped in scripture and religion and almost never do those engaged in the discussion realize their words hurt my beautiful wife. The Churches racism is institutionalized and it continues to be taught in some of our Sunday school manuals.

I would also like to have a reference to the manuals you cite.

We have an interracial couple in our ward, and the Black sister is a retired Army Command Sergent Major. She is an extraordinarily competent sister with a special spirit. She and her husband have in the last couple of years adopted six children (three Vietnamese siblings and three Black siblings). It has been an extraordinary blessing to have them in our ward.

Our ward is about as multicultural as they come. Hispanics (including several native of Latin America), Blacks (including several native Africans) and Asians (including native born Filipinos and Japanese). These brothers and sisters all bring a uniqueness that is refreshing.

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.

Now Moksha. You know perfectly well that President Hinckley's statement was not offered as an explanation for the former Priesthood ban, but as a rebuke to some contemporary individuals who, having no religious duty to withhold the Priesthood from anyone, really are being racist if they imagine it should be withheld.

So why do you assert something when you know it isn't true?

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post
I have not commented one way or the other on President Kimball, his goodness, wisdom, openness, or love. Nor have I commented on his position on racially mixed marriages. Please confine your insulting remarks to things I've actually said.

Certainly.

First, Johnny Rotten quoted President Kimball:

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?

Then Hammer responded:

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

Ruski Canuck sneered:

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 ?

Hammer replied:

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.

So Not quite you weighed in with the utterly vile remark:

Jesus wants me to be a bigot, apparently.

President Kimball's counsel was the topic of the discussion. As you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post
I have not commented one way or the other on President Kimball, his goodness, wisdom, openness, or love. Nor have I commented on his position on racially mixed marriages. Please confine your insulting remarks to things I've actually said.

Certainly.

First, Johnny Rotten quoted President Kimball:

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?

Then Hammer responded:

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

Ruski Canuck sneered:

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 ?

Hammer replied:

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.

So Not quite you weighed in with the utterly vile remark:

Jesus wants me to be a bigot, apparently.

President Kimball's counsel was the topic of the discussion. As you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

I have already apologized for that remark. It was directed at Hammer's reading of Biblical teachings, which I indeed find bigoted (his reading, mind you). It was not ever directed at President Kimball.

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)

I've been trying to get the full text of that interview from the Provo Daily Herald. Any news on that yet, CKS?

Share this post


Link to post
I have not commented one way or the other on President Kimball, his goodness, wisdom, openness, or love. Nor have I commented on his position on racially mixed marriages. Please confine your insulting remarks to things I've actually said.

Certainly.

First, Johnny Rotten quoted President Kimball:

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?

Then Hammer responded:

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

Ruski Canuck sneered:

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 ?

Hammer replied:

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.

So Not quite you weighed in with the utterly vile remark:

Jesus wants me to be a bigot, apparently.

President Kimball's counsel was the topic of the discussion. As you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

I have already apologized for that remark. It was directed at Hammer's reading of Biblical teachings, which I indeed find bigoted (his reading, mind you). It was not ever directed at President Kimball.

I'm glad to hear it; an apology is merited, although I find no record of it in this thread. I suggest that you ought to make a better effort to follow a connected argument, since Hammer's reading of the scripture was not connected to the subthread which culminated in your remark.

Which, just BTW, entirely disqualifies you from complaining about anyone else's remarks being "insulting."

Regards,

Pahoran

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).

Your problem is that you are trying to put the whole world, religions, and God into your modern day mentality and make it all come out right. Sorry, no can do.

You need to get a little broader and clearer understanding which includes some spiritual insight which you seem to badly lack.

You are so anxious to point some accusing finger that you can't really see what is right before your face.

Share this post


Link to post
I have not commented one way or the other on President Kimball, his goodness, wisdom, openness, or love. Nor have I commented on his position on racially mixed marriages. Please confine your insulting remarks to things I've actually said.

Certainly.

First, Johnny Rotten quoted President Kimball:

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?

Then Hammer responded:

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

Ruski Canuck sneered:

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 ?

Hammer replied:

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.

So Not quite you weighed in with the utterly vile remark:

Jesus wants me to be a bigot, apparently.

President Kimball's counsel was the topic of the discussion. As you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

I have already apologized for that remark. It was directed at Hammer's reading of Biblical teachings, which I indeed find bigoted (his reading, mind you). It was not ever directed at President Kimball.

I'm glad to hear it; an apology is merited, although I find no record of it in this thread. I suggest that you ought to make a better effort to follow a connected argument, since Hammer's reading of the scripture was not connected to the subthread which culminated in your remark.

Which, just BTW, entirely disqualifies you from complaining about anyone else's remarks being "insulting."

Regards,

Pahoran

I wasn't complaining about being insulted. I was complaining about being criticized for something I didn't do. I have a thick enough skin to take all the insults you can throw at me. And you're probably right. It was late last night, I had been up since 4:00 a.m., and I was tired and more than a little cranky.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

This was indeed the case. The problem is that our 'critics' can't pin anything on us using actual doctrine so they stoop to personal opinion. Even though such may be strongly worded or come from a high source, they have no excuse not to be able to distinguish between the two.

Share this post


Link to post

Listen to the prophets.

So Not quite you weighed in with the utterly vile remark:

Jesus wants me to be a bigot, apparently.

President Kimball's counsel was the topic of the discussion. As you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

I have already apologized for that remark. It was directed at Hammer's reading of Biblical teachings, which I indeed find bigoted (his reading, mind you). It was not ever directed at President Kimball.

It seems to make you feel a little less self hating to point fingers and use nasty terms at people who believe in a living prophet and a God who doesn't see bigotry in your modern mentality. Sorry you have to get your jollies in such a pathetic manner.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

This was indeed the case. The problem is that our 'critics' can't pin anything on us using actual doctrine so they stoop to personal opinion. Even though such may be strongly worded or come from a high source, they have no excuse not to be able to distinguish between the two.

I've never asked for a reason. All we have are the scriptures and the personal opinions of prophets and apostles. I'm just surprised that some people still argue that God was the author of it.

It seems to make you feel a little less self hating to point fingers and use nasty terms at people who believe in a living prophet and a God who doesn't see bigotry in your modern mentality. Sorry you have to get your jollies in such a pathetic manner.

I've already apologized twice for what was a rather mean-spirited thing to say. I'm not sure what else I can say at this point.

Share this post


Link to post

I've already apologized twice for what was a rather mean-spirited thing to say. I'm not sure what else I can say at this point.

I have already apologized for that remark. It was directed at Hammer's reading of Biblical teachings, which I indeed find bigoted (his reading, mind you). It was not ever directed at President Kimball.

You have made reference to me as a bigot in no less than and possibly more than 3 posts. Get over yourself. If anything you are a prejudicial bigot against mormons.

Share this post


Link to post

It is always nice to go down memory lane and once more discuss blacks and the priesthood. I remember that time very well in church when the blacks could not have the preisthood. In fact, I do not remember it ever coming up in conversation among us youn adults. And I do remember that we did have black members at time in the ward.

It was just accepted that blacks could not have the priesthood. And I suppose that their is a simple reason for this. Most of us thought that the church was bigger than just one issue. Blacks not having the priesthood did not demean or invalidate the book of mormon and the guidance that we got from the prophets. In fact, just the contrary. We seem to forget what the lds church was like at that time in the 1970's. The church was a vibrant church filled with social events and activities. People got together from various backgrounds and fellowshipped one another. At least this was the case in NYC.

To make hay out of this issue now, it quite a stretch. Sorry critics....you need to relive the 70's...and remember yourselves as members....the church was vibrant...filled with life and most welcoming to all peoples of color.

Share this post


Link to post
If that reasoning is to be accepted, I would have an awfully difficult time explaining Christ's teachings during his ministry.

Teachings like this, for example?

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, "Send her away; for she crieth after us." But he answered and said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

You oversimplify.

Too bad the world is such a messy place.

Share this post


Link to post
If that reasoning is to be accepted, I would have an awfully difficult time explaining Christ's teachings during his ministry.

Teachings like this, for example?

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, "Send her away; for she crieth after us." But he answered and said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

You oversimplify.

Too bad the world is such a messy place.

Matthew 15:28

"Then Jesus said to her in reply, "O woman, great is your faith! 12 Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed from that hour."

Share this post


Link to post
To make hay out of this issue now, it quite a stretch. Sorry critics....you need to relive the 70's...and remember yourselves as members....the church was vibrant...filled with life and most welcoming to all peoples of color.

Easy for you to say...

Yeahâ?¦lets take a minute and reflect on the experiences of the 1960â??s and 70â??s.

When the rest of the nation had passed civil rights legislation, Utah was still fighting against it. Utah was one of the last States to adopt civil rights legislation, Utah the state most influenced by the Church, the state that should most closely reflect the Churches values, has a dismal record when it comes to race relations.

According to Prince and Wright in David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, Pg 104. Speaking about President McKay who was far more progressive than his successors President Lee or Smith, the authors said:

â??He definitely was not â??progressiveâ? on the issue (Civil Rights), even if measured by the low standards that would have earned him such a label during his lifetime. On the other hand, he never advocated legislation or behavior that would worsen the status of blacks within the United States; indeed, his apparent desire was to preserve the status quo. Yet he also never advocated legal remedies to segregation and discrimination. He was, at best, very conservative moderate.â?

To know more I would suggest that you read the entire chapter from the book, pages 60-105. The chapter is an illuminating portrait of President McKayâ??s Presidency. It paints a picture of a Presidency that is shockingly progressive about giving the Priesthood to the Blacks, yet very backwards about civil rights, which he (McKay) linked to the communist movement. Moreover, the brethren were split over the issues of priesthood and civil rights, on one side Elders Hugh B Brown and N. Eldon Tanner were more progressive on both points, while on the other side (Conservative) was Elders Harold B Lee, Joseph Fielding Smith and others.

On a more personal anecdotal level my wife while in high school in the 1980â??s in Utah County was regularly called an [email protected], as well as other insults. Her mother while in high School in Salt Lake in the 1960â??s was also regularly referred to as an [email protected], she has harsh memories about how she was treated by the other members of the Church and to this day has a difficult time discussing the racism she faced. I grew up in Texas and I remember clearly in the early and mid 70â??s that the most racist people I knew were members of the church. They (Members) wrapped their racism in the gospel teachings and scriptures. Even while on my mission in the 80â??s I witnessed many acts of racism by members of the church, Bishops and others.

Non-minorities rarely have the ears to hear the racist words and cutting remarks often made unintentionally by others. It is made worse when those making the remarks do it with a sense of moral or spiritual superiority.

For example:

Hammers ignorant and cutting remark,

â??It was no error. The church should not follow the world. The world should follow the church. Those who believe God's ways/church's ways should be the same as the world's ways are sadly mistaken.

If a modicum of understanding were used to see the massive difference in thinking of God to the world, these kinds of threads would not be filled up.â?

The sad thing is people like Hammer believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, â??because God said soâ?. Hammer if you bother to dig any deeper maybe read a little, you will realize that the Church is â??following the worldâ?. It was after (two decades later) the USA adopted civil rights legislation and ended institutionalized racism that the Church finally (dragged kicking and screaming) received the â??revelationâ? to end its institutionalized racism. Moreover the issue of Blacks and the Priesthood is not as black and white as you and others make it. There are no white hats and black hats in regard to this issue.

Yesâ?¦Hammer you can choose to justify anything you want and you can throw insults if you wish, I could care less, it only shows your extreme ignorance.

The reality is that some of the Brethren were more progressive than the average American, while some, the majority, held views that were far less progressive than the average American. The damage occurs after 130 years of false teachings, (brought about not from revelation, unless you can provide a cite to such a revelation) reinforced from the pulpit, scriptures, apologetic works, and Church lesson manuals.

Instead IMO it is a result of racist attitudes and preexisting prejudice of some of the early saints, brought with them when they joined the Church and migrated to Utah.

All the Best,

JR

Share this post


Link to post
If that reasoning is to be accepted, I would have an awfully difficult time explaining Christ's teachings during his ministry.

Teachings like this, for example?

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, "Send her away; for she crieth after us." But he answered and said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

You oversimplify.

Too bad the world is such a messy place.

Matthew 15:28

"Then Jesus said to her in reply, "O woman, great is your faith! 12 Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed from that hour."

Do you want to add the part about the dogs and scraps? She put herself at that level.

Share this post


Link to post
To make hay out of this issue now, it quite a stretch. Sorry critics....you need to relive the 70's...and remember yourselves as members....the church was vibrant...filled with life and most welcoming to all peoples of color.

Easy for you to say...

Yeahâ?¦lets take a minute and reflect on the experiences of the 1960â??s and 70â??s.

When the rest of the nation had passed civil rights legislation, Utah was still fighting against it. Utah was one of the last States to adopt civil rights legislation, Utah the state most influenced by the Church, the state that should most closely reflect the Churches values, has a dismal record when it comes to race relations.

According to Prince and Wright in David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, Pg 104. Speaking about President McKay who was far more progressive than his successors President Lee or Smith, the authors said:

â??He definitely was not â??progressiveâ? on the issue (Civil Rights), even if measured by the low standards that would have earned him such a label during his lifetime. On the other hand, he never advocated legislation or behavior that would worsen the status of blacks within the United States; indeed, his apparent desire was to preserve the status quo. Yet he also never advocated legal remedies to segregation and discrimination. He was, at best, very conservative moderate.â?

To know more I would suggest that you read the entire chapter from the book, pages 60-105. The chapter is an illuminating portrait of President McKayâ??s Presidency. It paints a picture of a Presidency that is shockingly progressive about giving the Priesthood to the Blacks, yet very backwards about civil rights, which he (McKay) linked to the communist movement. Moreover, the brethren were split over the issues of priesthood and civil rights, on one side Elders Hugh B Brown and N. Eldon Tanner were more progressive on both points, while on the other side (Conservative) was Elders Harold B Lee, Joseph Fielding Smith and others.

On a more personal anecdotal level my wife while in high school in the 1980â??s in Utah County was regularly called an [email protected], as well as other insults. Her mother while in high School in Salt Lake in the 1960â??s was also regularly referred to as an [email protected], she has harsh memories about how she was treated by the other members of the Church and to this day has a difficult time discussing the racism she faced. I grew up in Texas and I remember clearly in the early and mid 70â??s that the most racist people I knew were members of the church. They (Members) wrapped their racism in the gospel teachings and scriptures. Even while on my mission in the 80â??s I witnessed many acts of racism by members of the church, Bishops and others.

Non-minorities rarely have the ears to hear the racist words and cutting remarks often made unintentionally by others. It is made worse when those making the remarks do it with a sense of moral or spiritual superiority.

For example:

Hammers ignorant and cutting remark,

â??It was no error. The church should not follow the world. The world should follow the church. Those who believe God's ways/church's ways should be the same as the world's ways are sadly mistaken.

If a modicum of understanding were used to see the massive difference in thinking of God to the world, these kinds of threads would not be filled up.â?

The sad thing is people like Hammer believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, â??because God said soâ?. Hammer if you bother to dig any deeper maybe read a little, you will realize that the Church is â??following the worldâ?. It was after (two decades later) the USA adopted civil rights legislation and ended institutionalized racism that the Church finally (dragged kicking and screaming) received the â??revelationâ? to end its institutionalized racism. Moreover the issue of Blacks and the Priesthood is not as black and white as you and others make it. There are no white hats and black hats in regard to this issue.

Yesâ?¦Hammer you can choose to justify anything you want and you can throw insults if you wish, I could care less, it only shows your extreme ignorance.

The reality is that some of the Brethren were more progressive than the average American, while some, the majority, held views that were far less progressive than the average American. The damage occurs after 130 years of false teachings, (brought about not from revelation, unless you can provide a cite to such a revelation) reinforced from the pulpit, scriptures, apologetic works, and Church lesson manuals.

Instead IMO it is a result of racist attitudes and preexisting prejudice of some of the early saints, brought with them when they joined the Church and migrated to Utah.

All the Best,

JR

Obviously you are very prejudiced by your circumstances. Or maybe biased would be a better word. I went to school with the minority being whites. We had every major race in our schools. The majority were blacks, hispanics and janpanese (who btw also felt pushed under back then because of places like Topaz) we were kicked and pushed down stairs by Blacks who perceived any kind of afront when none were intended. Yes they were extreme white haters.

The one thing that bothers me more than any other thing about your statements is the blantant self-centered and all right attitude about my prejudice when you have no clue where I have been and who I am because of it. After coming out of that high school (slc South High) I should hate blacks and hispanics. I don't.

I don't look back with lists of hurts and reasons for my hate. I have spent much of my years trying to heal the pain and turn the other cheek.

I will state agqain, that what you are saying is the worlds opinion not Gods. God knows all. God does what He does and He answers to no man. He will put His leaders in compromising places for the world to test and try them to see if they will do what so ever the Lord asks of them.

Say all the best when you mean just the opposite. I wonder much about you.

Share this post


Link to post
If that reasoning is to be accepted, I would have an awfully difficult time explaining Christ's teachings during his ministry.

Teachings like this, for example?

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, "Send her away; for she crieth after us." But he answered and said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

You oversimplify. Too bad the world is such a messy place.

Then Jesus said to her in reply, O woman, great is your faith! 12 Let it be done for you as you wish. And her daughter was healed from that hour.

Do you want to add the part about the dogs and scraps? She put herself at that level.

Yes, let's do talk about the dogs and scraps. The Master brought up the dog reference, perhaps ironically, perhaps not (impossible to tell). Yet He did bring it up.

I find nothing here inconsistent with "A time for every purpose under Heaven." The time of the Gentiles had not yet come, yet come it did.

And the time for lifting the ban came, as it was foretold.

And it was 28 years ago.

So it's still an issue.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post

IT really shouldn't be an issue. It is only used as an issue for those who have not tried to bind up wounds but leave them putrifying as taught in Isaiah 1.

Share this post


Link to post
IT really shouldn't be an issue. It is only used as an issue for those who have not tried to bind up wounds but leave them putrifying as taught in Isaiah 1.

As Isaiah 1 is of questionable provenance, I find its usefulness limited. But, by all means, let's talk about what is contained in that "Introduction to Isaiah -- for Dummies" chapter. Here is the specific provision you refer to:

Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

If you are calling the Church to repentence, as G-d does elsewhere throughout Isaiah, at a time when the Church is prostrate and bleeding under condemnation, with but a remnant still living, then I'm calling you out right here, right now to lay down.

If you are referring to something else, then speak plainly.

Share this post


Link to post
IT really shouldn't be an issue. It is only used as an issue for those who have not tried to bind up wounds but leave them putrifying as taught in Isaiah 1.

As Isaiah 1 is of questionable provenance, I find its usefulness limited. But, by all means, let's talk about what is contained in that "Introduction to Isaiah -- for Dummies" chapter. Here is the specific provision you refer to:

Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

If you are calling the Church to repentence, as G-d does elsewhere throughout Isaiah, at a time when the Church is prostrate and bleeding under condemnation, with but a remnant still living, then I'm calling you out right here, right now to lay down.

If you are referring to something else, then speak plainly.

I was referring to those who are angry still about the black priesthood ban. I am all for the church have been spending much of my time defending the leaders and doctrines.

I think you are confused about who you are responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Hammer said;

The one thing that bothers me more than any other thing about your statements is the blantant self-centered and all right attitude about my prejudice when you have no clue where I have been and who I am because of it. After coming out of that high school (slc South High) I should hate blacks and hispanics. I don't.

NOâ?¦you should not hateâ?¦instead you should have a deeper understanding of the pain many feel when confronted with racism. You have my deepest apology and sympathy.

Nowâ?¦image if that racism was taught from the pulpit. Image if you grew up believing that because of your preexistent behavior you were unworthy of exaltationâ?¦unworthy of the priesthoodâ?¦unworthy of the highest gifts God has to offer. No matter your behavior in this life you are unworthy of those higher blessings. You cannot through your own actions attain temple blessings. Instead, you are told that you have inherited a six thousand year old curseâ?¦orâ?¦you failed to measure up in the preexistence.

You are less worthy than all those around you, by virtue of the color of your skin, the width of your nose, the kink in your hair or the physical shape of your face. In Africa you had to prove that you could trace both sides of your linage out of Africa before you could receive the priesthoodâ?¦orâ?¦receive your temple blessings. Anything short of that kept you from accessing the higher blessings of the gospel.

Nowâ?¦fast forward three decadesâ?¦the people that you worship with every Sunday are still saying that the â??doctrineâ? of withholding the priesthood from blacks (I prefer folklore) was and is â??Godâ??s willâ?. That God willed it, that this racism prior to 1978 was God ordained. The residue from that racism continues to be taught when ever this subject is discussed in Church or here on the Internet when people make statements about Godâ??s intent. That is institutionalized racism.

hammer said;

I will state agqain, that what you are saying is the worlds opinion not Gods. God knows all. God does what He does and He answers to no man. He will put His leaders in compromising places for the world to test and try them to see if they will do what so ever the Lord asks of them.

It is this kind of self righteous opinion that I am talking about. I was once where you areâ?¦I challenge you to find one reference of revealed scripture that reinforces this folklore as doctrine.

Please take a few minutes and read an article by Armand L. Mauss on this subject, he directly addresses all the issues surrounding the blacks and the priesthood folklore and it helped me confront the cold reality of the facts.

1. â??Mormonism and the Negro: Faith, Folklore, and Civil Rightsâ?, Armand L. Mauss

It can be found here, http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neither1.htm

I hope it will help you the way it helped me. Brother Mauss is an active member of the Church and has authored several books on Mormonism and Church history; he is a retired University Professor, and well respected in LDS academic circles.

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.

×