Interesting Thoughts on Blacks and the Priesthood

[selek]

Andy, you consistently and deliberately gloss over a number of crucial points- that you insist upon doing so after repeated correction- and worse yet, presume to judge and condemn based on demonstrably false premises- are dead give aways that you're not arguing in good faith.

Among the points you choose to ignore are:

1) The simple fact that the Ban was about lineage, not race.

2) That YOU- based on a false premise- find the Ban objectionable does NOT mean the Ban was illegitimate.

You keep referring to the Ban as though it were a mistake- an assertion which has NOT been proven.

3) Whether the Ban was legitimate or not, no one has suffered any demonstrable harm. Whether the Ban was the will of God or a damnable lie, no one has been denied anything to which they were entitled.

You presume to judge and condemn the Church and it's leaders for a wrong you have yet to prove was a wrong.

Until you can prove conclusively that the Ban did not originate from God, that it caused tangible harm, and that it denied someone what was thier legitimate due, you have nothing to complain about.

You keep mentioning the Civil Rights Act- yet ignore the fact that every area the CRA addressed- voting, housing, employment, and segregation- were areas in which Utah and Idaho were years ahead of the curve.

One more thing- specifically now- what civil right did the Priesthood Ban violate?

Does anyone have a civil right to hold the priesthood of God?

[AndyOne]

Selek - Who said anything about violating the CRA? I'm saying that the ban survived the core civil rights movement - a fact often used to argue that its removal was not politically motivated (i.e., or they would have done it sooner). I do not believe the ban was of God - I don't have to prove that belief. BY, BRM and others' quotes often refer to the "Negro Race" - I've got a book full of quotes. But what was the practical difference? Those excluded were those of Black African extraction - or, in some areas, could not prove otherwise.

[AKS]

1) The simple fact that the Ban was about lineage, not race.

And how was lineage discovered in the 19th century? I'm sorry but I don't buy that garbage for a moment. And anyway, how does this square with the spirit of the 2nd article of faith? BTW I know you are going to appeal to the bible here. That does not strengthen your position AFAIAC.

[counterfitdollar]

I was born in a samll town in rural Mississippi in 1944 and am a lifetime LSD member. I remember being told all of my life that the Blacks would one day have the priesthood. A more racist small southern town would have been hard to find, but everyone in my small branch knew that the day would come when this prophecy would be fulfilled. It was an accepted fact and everyone was glad when the time finally came and the ban was lifted. I have no idea why the ban was given in the firt place, but accept that there must have been a reason.

[LeSellers]

Just curious, but does anyone know if the Church-owned Hotel Utah was segregated, or denied privileges to blacks?

I somehow doubt you're asking from ignorance.

However, I know that blacks stayed there, although there were certain "privileges" not extended. It was, I believe, Mahalia Jackson who was performing in Salt Lake City and who stayed in the Hotel. She was, however, not allowed to use the regular elevators, but used the back entrance and freight elevator.

I do not know who was the manager at that time, but there is no necessity for it to have been a LDS. When I worked there, the general manager was Catholic.

In any event, it was far from extraordinary for blacks in USmerica to receive differential treatment in such cases. LDSs are not and have never claimed to be products of the XXI in the XX or the XIX.

Chronocentrism is as ugly as perceived racism. One is often tempted to assume that enlightened people should be enlightened the same way as oneself, and that those others should share the same concerns he does.

The issue is not how individual LDSs treated blacks, but how the doctrine of the Church applied to them. LDS doctrine is and has always been that all mankind may be saved, including black, brown, red, yellow, and white.

Lehi

[Brenda]

I was born in a samll town in rural Mississippi in 1944 and am a lifetime LSD member. I remember being told all of my life that the Blacks would one day have the priesthood. A more racist small southern town would have been hard to find, but everyone in my small branch knew that the day would come when this prophecy would be fulfilled. It was an accepted fact and everyone was glad when the time finally came and the ban was lifted. I have no idea why the ban was given in the firt place, but accept that there must have been a reason.

Worth repeating.

[Areabird]

So if blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood, then how did Elijah Abel and his son and grandson receive the priesthood? And if it was okay back then, why did it then suddenly become not okay? Did God just forget to tell Joseph not to do that?

[Areabird]

Mormon Questioner:

The Church as always been AGAINST any discrimination in schooling be it secular, or in our Church Meetings based on skin color. ALL have always been welcome to attend any of our public meetings.

So it seems, according to LeSellers, that the church did not discriminate against blacks in schooling or in church meetings, but church owned businesses were free to discriminate at will. Is that correct?

[thesometimesaint]

Areabird:

We do not know how the Ban came into being. It appears to have originated sometime during the presidency of BY. But no one is really sure. For the record God has never explained the why of any Ban He has ever given. I personally would argue the point that the Ban was not a trial for the Black members, they were and are rewarded for their faithfulness, but a trial to the White ones, in how they treated the Blacks

It MAY have happened however I know of no records that indicate that someone in some random Church owned and run business discriminated on the basis of skin color. We do have Official Church Doctrine and Policy that such discrimination is contrary to Gods' word.

[Areabird]

Areabird:

We do not know how the Ban came into being. It appears to have originated sometime during the presidency of BY. But no one is really sure. For the record God has never explained the why of any Ban He has ever given. I personally would argue the point that the Ban was not a trial for the Black members, they were and are rewarded for their faithfulness, but a trial to the White ones, in how they treated the Blacks

It MAY have happened however I know of no records that indicate that someone in some random Church owned and run business discriminated on the basis of skin color. We do have Official Church Doctrine and Policy that such discrimination is contrary to Gods' word.

I think you might want to take some aspirin for that one. I'm not sure how you could do that kind of mental gymnastics without hurting yourself.

[thesometimesaint]

Areabird:

So God never allows Whites to be tested and tried as to what they will do?

Great Gig IF you can get it.

[selek]

I think you might want to take some aspirin for that one. I'm not sure how you could do that kind of mental gymnastics without hurting yourself.

FlippedTheBird, I realize that as an apostate, race-baiter, and demagogue, you are pathologically averse to making a cogent argument- but won't you at least try?

Instead of just sneering that SS's point is wrong, why don't you DEMONSTRATE precisely where and how it's in error.

[daz2]

A thought experiment:

I wonder how many white commenters who defend the priesthood/temple blessing restriction based on race/lineage would defend as inspired a new revelation that any person who had any white (descendent of Abel) ancestry would no longer be permitted to exercise (or receive) the priesthood or to be endowed or sealed in the temple during mortality. When asked if this means that in the hereafter, people with any white (descendent of Abel) ancestors could be sealed in the temple vicariously, there is not unanimity, but a couple of the Brethren opine that descendents of whites (of Abel) can be sealed in the eternities as "servants". And, in fact, at some point, a couple of descendents of whites (of Abel) are indeed sealed as "servants." When asked why the Church had adopted such a policy, one Apostle publishes a book stating that descendents of whites (of Abel) were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence.

Racial discrimination? I don't think so. It is discrimination based on lineage. Unfair discrimination? Nope. God intended it to be that way--maybe whites can eventually get the same, or at least similar blessings, and at least enter the Celestial Kingdom as servants. Should non-Mormons be concerned? Nope. None of their business. Should Mormons be concerned? Nope.

P.S. I wonder how many of the white commenters who would defend such a policy by the LDS Church would defend Obama if he attended a Church that had such teachings and restrictions on white members.

[thesometimesaint]

daz2:

Of course God can give or refuse to give His Priesthood to any one or any group He so chooses. However since the beginnings of this dispensation He has tried to make the Priesthood available to as many people as possible.

Why should I care what if any church President Obama attends?

[annewandering]

This is something we always knew and accepted as well. Many people I knew prayed for it to be soon. Perhaps that was the test. Who knows but if it was we, apparently, finally passed it. We, being nonblack members, in my opinion.

[Hoops22]

MANY preachers and professors of the Christian faith used the Bible to support slavery. To suggest that this is a Mormon problem because of denial of the priesthood and ignore the rest of the United States' views on Black folks is just plain kooky.

Mars' suggested reading: Uncle Tom's Cabin (Harriet Beecher) and White Like Me (Tim Wise)

But let's not forget that the civil rights movement was at least supported by many "apostate" churches and at most played a pivotal role in advancing civil rights.

Seems the apostates were ahead of the lds curve on this one.

[BlueDreams]

I think that is about the only thing you can do, and hopefully would help someone.

But even then it is unsatisfactory. The few black members I have spoken to are deeply conflicted about the ban, and they believe that it was a cultural thing, not a real direction from God. That the extension of the Priesthood to all was rectifying a mistake, not a simple change in the Lord's will. They stay active in the church because of their testimony, despite the fact that they are angry and frustrated that it took the church so long on this issue.

As someone who's half black, I'm not deeply conflicted about the ban. I do not believe it was from God and the only confliction I had was coming to that conclusion. I think it was allowed, similarly to how divorce is allowed, or how the israelites were given the lower law... because the people of that time were not willing to have otherwise. (How well it fits the times they lived in is very parallel: from the onset of fear of miscigenation, to the enforcement of the one drop rule in the end of slavery). And the only reason I've been frustrated is when the beliefs people developed over the years to justify or make sense of the ban creeps up in conversation still today. I've never felt angry.

Most the black LDS I know (which is also few. I have plenty of acquaintances, but only a few close friends). Come to terms with it and move on. I don't know many...well really any, who are angry and frustrated and of the younger generation (like myself) there's far more pertinent things.

It is the difference between having separate but equal schools, or having education for white people only, and expecting black people to home school their kids. Most churches had the equivalent of separate schools. The Mormon church had no real viable option for black people until 1978.

Somewhat but not. The LDS couldn't easily have seperate congregations for black members because the point of the priesthood is unity and service as well as maintaining the structure of the church. Seperate unity is simply an oxymoron...especially when the goal was more to ease the white patrons from having to associate too directly with black people in any way that denotes true equality (Not that I think this is the case now with black churches). There was a viable option for black people. It wasn't to the extent that white people in the church had, but they all could attend, they all could be baptised, and they all could be members. It's unsatisfactory, but it's an option.

Racial discrimination? I don't think so. It is discrimination based on lineage.

It was one of lineage. Selek and you are actually both right in my eyes. It's one of lineage based on the racial notions of the time. It not only followed the whole Ham thing, but developed it to fit into the growing belief of the one drop rule....that the black blood is an overriding gene strain. The idea would grow so strong that in just a few decades entire categories of people would slip into one category of black. It still, in someways resides today. As a person who ID's as strictly mixed/biracial (I'm much like Obama and origin (african dad, rural white mom) except in how I identify), I see it plenty in a society that still views race in either,or categorizations, forgetting about the words both and all.

Seems the apostates were ahead of the lds curve on this one.

I don't really think so. In racial thought, members were not much different from other non-lds (or if you wish, apostates). And these apostates that were civil rights activists were ahead of the curve in general anyways.

With luv,

BD

[Jeff K.]

But let's not forget that the civil rights movement was at least supported by many "apostate" churches and at most played a pivotal role in advancing civil rights.

Seems the apostates were ahead of the lds curve on this one.

I suggest you study your history. Especially how these apostate churches remained monochrome in their congregationsm. I would say that the question of the priesthood aside, the LDS church was more open to membership and "sharing of congregations" rather than keeping "them" in their place in a segregated congregation.

[Lance in TX]

I suggest you study your history. Especially how these apostate churches remained monochrome in their congregationsm. I would say that the question of the priesthood aside, the LDS church was more open to membership and "sharing of congregations" rather than keeping "them" in their place in a segregated congregation.

Also, don't forget that one of the reasons the early LDS Church was not liked was because of the anti-slavery stance that it took.

[Hughes]

Also, don't forget that one of the reasons the early LDS Church was not liked was because of the anti-slavery stance that it took.

You mean they didn't support slavery, but considered it a curse to have black skin? Seems strange.

"wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

2 Nephi 5:21

[annewandering]

Thinking really isn't that hard for most people.

[Cold Steel]

Since blacks were excluded from any Temple blessing, including Celestial Marriage, it's reasonable to point out that blacks were excluded from ordinances necessary for exaltation.

Yes, but only temporarily. It was always said that they would one day hold the priesthood and have all the blessings necessary for exaltation. My biggest gripe with the policy is that we have the Doctrine & Covenants, a virtual handbook for priesthood, and there's nothing restricting the priesthood in there. Elijah Abel and others also were never told not to use their priesthood.

I suspect the reason had something to do with bigotry in the United States and the inability of some to accept Blacks in priesthood leadership roles. As a dispensationalist church, we often concentrate on various groups at a time. David O. McKay apparently had a strong interest in lifting the ban, but was told no â?? that it would be for another. President Kimball was the man. I don't recall anyone being against it at the time and, in fact, everyone was rejoicing. I remember just what I was doing at the time (driving in a car) and I was overjoyed. Almost wrecked the car, too.

President Kimball was the 12th president of the church and I've oft wondered whether this was a coincidence, twelve being a number associated with priesthood.

For the record God has never explained the why of any Ban He has ever given.

Well, we know why the sons of Aaron received the lesser priesthood and why the others were barred. They were the most righteous and they're the ones who showed the greatest loyalty to God, even to the killing of their friends and family members who had rebelled. I find it significant that the revelation came not only to the president of the church, but to the Quorum of the Twelve at the same time. One day we'll know more about it.

[Cold Steel]

But let's not forget that the civil rights movement was at least supported by many "apostate" churches and at most played a pivotal role in advancing civil rights. Seems the apostates were ahead of the lds curve on this one.

Depends on where the "curve" is. At the time we were abolitionists, we were derided for that, but then, later, we were seen as racists...and we hadn't changed our views towards Blacks being fully human and fully equal to whites in all civil matters.

The priesthood policy was most likely done to accommodate a racist world. Jesus, however, was not a social reformer. He didn't teach slaves to escape from their masters or to kill them or be vindictive towards them. The important thing in mortality is to be a good Christian, whatever one's lot is. The Missouri mob raped women, murdered children and men, all because they thought the Mormons would upset their rights to own slaves. Oh, and they were just wretched human beings, too.

[Ahman]

It is important to remember that the blacks were not the only ones to have the priesthood banned from them.

Prior to the New Testament Revelation to begin sharing the gospel with the Gentiles the Gentiles did not have the gospel. Christ himself refused to even teach them.

This seperation of responsibility goes back to the time of Noah and his sons. Through his righteous son Shem came the lineage of Abraham, who blessed the earth through his priesthood. Through Japheth came the Gentiles, who did not receive the priesthood until after the time of Christ.The decendents of Ham, who was the one seeking to copy the pattern of Noahs garments, were denied the right of bearing the priesthood until recent times. It is not until this dispensation of the fulness of times that all are once again able to hold the priesthood as it floods the earth.

[BlueDreams]

This seperation of responsibility goes back to the time of Noah and his sons. Through his righteous son Shem came the lineage of Abraham, who blessed the earth through his priesthood. Through Japheth came the Gentiles, who did not receive the priesthood until after the time of Christ.The decendents of Ham, who was the one seeking to copy the pattern of Noahs garments, were denied the right of bearing the priesthood until recent times. It is not until this dispensation of the fulness of times that all are once again able to hold the priesthood as it floods the earth.

I don't mean to pick on you, but this is one of those explanations I was talking about that irritate me. For one they make no sense. Gentiles isn't by blood, because gentile is whoever isn't jewish....that would include black people. Not to mention lingeage is never that straight foreward. All of those lines within a few generations would have mixed here and there. There is no scriptural evidence that all blacks are decendants of Ham...it's a pupular notion from the 19th century. Any more than that Japheth is the great-great of asians, gentiles, or whoever else it's been believed he fathers. Anymore than Shem is the decendant of all europeans as well as jews. What it does fit well is the ideas of race that have grown over time. Namely that there are three types, that these three types are fundamentally different, and that it can be found in biology (specifically ancestory in this case).

THis is not based on a good scriptural basis, but a couple of points expanded into a theory.

With luv,

BD