Jump to content

Archived

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

blooit

Blacks, The Priesthood, and 1978

Recommended Posts

And then, after hundreds of years of slavery, and a century of "second class" status and severe persecution, when the culture is finally coming around to granting this group of people rights and privileges, it becomes time for this specific group of people to now be granted Priesthood blessings. Again, how does this make sense from an "eternal" perspective?
How did it make sense that Jesus would not teach the non-Jews, and that the gospel did not go out to non-Jews until after his death? The conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well illustrates the restrictions on religious practice even at the time of Jesus and it was not removed while he was present on earth. How does it make sense that only certain members by inheritance could do Priestly ordinances in the Temples? We don't know what things or what covenants were made in the pre-mortal existance. Perhaps the clue to the lifting of the ban is in your statement "when the culture is finally coming around...." Look how many years it took for the culture to come around and for the blacks to actually start to integrate into society.

Share this post


Link to post
How did it make sense that Jesus would not teach the non-Jews, and that the gospel did not go out to non-Jews until after his death? The conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well illustrates the restrictions on religious practice even at the time of Jesus and it was not removed while he was present on earth. How does it make sense that only certain members by inheritance could do Priestly ordinances in the Temples? We don't know what things or what covenants were made in the pre-mortal existance. Perhaps the clue to the lifting of the ban is in your statement "when the culture is finally coming around...." Look how many years it took for the culture to come around and for the blacks to actually start to integrate into society.

How does it make sense to justify something that doesn't make sense by citing something else that doesn't make sense. I'm confused.

Share this post


Link to post
How does it make sense to justify something that doesn't make sense by citing something else that doesn't make sense. I'm confused.
Then take it up with God.

Share this post


Link to post
Then take it up with God.

:P

I did. He told me He used to be racist, but isn't anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

Wimpy:

Or maybe God is working with us mortals to bring us around to be non racists.

Share this post


Link to post

William James: For better or for worse, the true reason for ceasing the practice of polygamy in the late 1800s was not that God just happened to decide at that moment that the church should stop practicing it, but rather that there was too much opposition from the powerful United States government.

This much is admitted to. The Manifesto was merely a means of authorizing the church to cease its practice in light of overwhelming opposition. On the other hand, Jacob, in the Book of Mormon, teaches that monogamy is the normal practice in the church and that the only exception is the Lord raising up seed. Polygamous cults don't recognize this part of the Book of Mormon. They believe it's a higher law.

The 1978 official declaration allowing male blacks to obtain the priesthood was not just because God happened to decide that "the time has now come" for blacks to have the priesthood, but rather that church leaders saw the writing on the wall: racism and discrimination are not reasonably supported by logic and reason, and the discriminative denial of the priesthood to blacks was a public relations nightmare for the church.

President McKay pleaded with the Lord for permission to reverse the policy and was denied. It only took one person to reverse it, and that was the president of the church. But it was not something that would be part of President McKay's legacy. When the revelation came, it came not only to President Kimball, but to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. All were witnesses to the revelation. If President Kimball decided alone to change the policy, he could have written a memo. Instead, there was a revelation with all the bells and whistles. President Kimball was the 12th President of the Church. The number 12 has traditionally represented priesthood. Thus I believe it was hardly more than coincidence.

Admitting error by the LDS church, while it will inevitably shake the fragile faith of some people who apparently only have the ability to see things in black and white (no pun intended), will be much better off for the church in the long run and should instill in its leaders the humility that comes with understanding that we do not have all the answers and that some doctrines which we have long accepted as true may actually be erroneous.

We have no idea what was behind the ban. This is a dispensationist church and we realize that God doesn't go to all nations and peoples at the same time. Presently we cannot baptize Jewish converts in Israel, even if they request it. They must wait until the Lord's time.

The Lord did not rail against slave owners during his ministry. He did not urge them towards rebellion but advised them, instead, to be good servants. Jesus was not a fiery social reformer. If there were roadblocks to people joining the church, the Lord tended to remove those roadblocks when necessary. We did not proselytize blacks until the late 70s, neither did we send them on missions to whites. The Lord will eventually get around to calling out all people of all races, but he does it as He sees fit. Invariably, we find that many members of the church believe they know what God is thinking and what the church leaders are thinking. Invariably, too, they are wrong.

...Civil Rights movement is a communist conspiracy (a common belief among segregationists, which may have had some merit in the 1930's, but none in the 1960's).

Well, it had merit in the 50s and the 60s as well. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King both had communist affiliations, and Parks was a Communist USA activist. King's primary people had communist affiliations as well. Walter Marshall Horton was an acknowledged communist, and author of a book that was subsequently plagiarized by King in his thesis: "Contemporary Continental Theology." King's trusted adviser Stanley Levison also was a communist. Myles Horton, Don West, Abner Berry, Bayard Rustin and James Dumbrowski were all avowed communists. Parks, along with many other civil rights leaders were trained at the Highlander Folk School, in Tennessee. The school was a communist front and specialized in creating civil disobedience and unrest.

You can debate the relative merits of communist support in those days. As indicated, I may have gone that route had I been a black person living then. But to say there were no affiliations is irresponsible and revisionist. Parks was no mere seamstress caught in a spontaneous act of rebellion; she was part of a covert operation that resulted in a real change of direction for this country, and one of positive change. Still, to deny communist involvement in it is being naive. It would be like saying that Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon and said the first thing that came into his mind...or that MacArthur's address before West Point were extemporaneous.

Yeah, right.

Share this post


Link to post
Interesting conclusions, P.

And rock-solid.

You are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters on the boards, you know, in a cartoonish sort of way.

Resort to derision when you don't have a cogent rebuttal.

And so it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
:P

I did. He told me He used to be racist, but isn't anymore.

Is there EEOC in Kolob?

Share this post


Link to post
Then take it up with God.

What does God have to do with it? CFR please that God instructed the LDS to withhold the priesthood in his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Is there EEOC in Kolob?

Oh, grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Wimpy:

Or maybe God is working with us mortals to bring us around to be non racists.

That would be the glass is half full position. Let's flip a coin. :P

Share this post


Link to post
What does God have to do with it? CFR please that God instructed the LDS to withhold the priesthood in his name.

How can anybody CFR God?

Share this post


Link to post
How can anybody CFR God?

That would be awesome, wouldn't it? Then we could finally get a plain answer to this discussion.

Dear Heavenly Father,

Are you racist or were your prophets merely misinterpreting your intentions in a racist manner?

Share this post


Link to post
That would be awesome, wouldn't it? Then we could finally get a plain answer to this discussion.

Dear Heavenly Father,

Are you racist or were your prophets merely misinterpreting your intentions in a racist manner?

Seems like a fair question. Kind of like "Dear Heavenly Father, when did you stop beating your children?"

Share this post


Link to post
How can anybody CFR God?

One of the problems is that people want to attribute the ban to "God", but God never really said it. For any other Church doctrine, we have a reference for God telling us through his prophets or the scriptures what He wants us to do. He clearly states it in the scriptures, or has the prophet stand in conference and say "God told me to tell you this", or the FP, or the 15 Apostles sending out a letter saying "This is what God wants us to tell you".

But for the priesthood ban, that didn't happen. It appears Brigham Young came up with it on his own, and it just kind of spiraled out of control from there. I'm not even sure why it needed a revelation to get undone; perhaps it had become so ingrained in the Mormon psyche that the nuclear option was necessary. If the prophet had just said "You know, there really isn't a good reason for us to be doing this, start ordaining anyone who is worthy" it would have worked just as well. There weren't any previous prophetic announcements or scriptures that would have been contradicted.

If you can think of any other church doctrine that is similarly undocumented, let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
One of the problems is that people want to attribute the ban to "God", but God never really said it. For any other Church doctrine, we have a reference for God telling us through his prophets or the scriptures what He wants us to do. He clearly states it in the scriptures, or has the prophet stand in conference and say "God told me to tell you this", or the FP, or the 15 Apostles sending out a letter saying "This is what God wants us to tell you".

But for the priesthood ban, that didn't happen. It appears Brigham Young came up with it on his own, and it just kind of spiraled out of control from there. I'm not even sure why it needed a revelation to get undone; perhaps it had become so ingrained in the Mormon psyche that the nuclear option was necessary. If the prophet had just said "You know, there really isn't a good reason for us to be doing this, start ordaining anyone who is worthy" it would have worked just as well. There weren't any previous prophetic announcements or scriptures that would have been contradicted.

If you can think of any other church doctrine that is similarly undocumented, let me know.

For once...we agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Seems like a fair question. Kind of like "Dear Heavenly Father, when did you stop beating your children?"

God's answer: After the end of the Old Testament.

I understand your point about the phrasing of my question. But, is it not a viable position that god is/was indeed racist? If the priesthood ban were still in place today, I wonder what the apologetic arguments in support of it would be.

Share this post


Link to post
God's answer: After the end of the Old Testament.

I understand your point about the phrasing of my question. But, is it not a viable position that god is/was indeed racist? If the priesthood ban were still in place today, I wonder what the apologetic arguments in support of it would be.

Probably the same as they used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
One of the problems is that people want to attribute the ban to "God", but God never really said it. For any other Church doctrine, we have a reference for God telling us through his prophets or the scriptures what He wants us to do. He clearly states it in the scriptures, or has the prophet stand in conference and say "God told me to tell you this", or the FP, or the 15 Apostles sending out a letter saying "This is what God wants us to tell you".

But for the priesthood ban, that didn't happen. It appears Brigham Young came up with it on his own, and it just kind of spiraled out of control from there. I'm not even sure why it needed a revelation to get undone; perhaps it had become so ingrained in the Mormon psyche that the nuclear option was necessary. If the prophet had just said "You know, there really isn't a good reason for us to be doing this, start ordaining anyone who is worthy" it would have worked just as well. There weren't any previous prophetic announcements or scriptures that would have been contradicted.

If you can think of any other church doctrine that is similarly undocumented, let me know.

I agree with most of what you say here. Sure, the priesthood ban wasn't "doctrine" but it was certainly a "practice" based on an interpretation of scripture. If Brigham Young, the prophet of god, misinterpreted scripture, how come it wasn't corrected sooner? Maybe it wasn't "in god's time" as some argue, but why not?

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.

×
×
  • Create New...