Withholding the priesthood from blacks

[Droopy]

The ban was by definition racist, as it applied to all those of African decent (ie the African race).

There is no such thing as an "African Race", or a "Mexican race" or a "European race". Black Africans have a certain DNA, a certain linage, and a certain body of progenitors. As the PofGP makes perfectly clear, that is the basis of the restriction on holding the Priesthood, not "race", a concept that appears nowhere in the standard works of the Church.

I think you've been reading far too much Leonard Jeffries.

Skin color is not "more broadly, race." Dark skin is a typical, but not an essential or exclusive characteristic of the African race. That you allowed dark skinned members of other races to enter the temple, does not mean the ban was not racist.

If you're going to attempt a logically persuasive argument here, then you're going to have to take the fact that only dark skinned Africans were so disallowed into consideration. Traditional white racism was never, under any circumstances, so selective.

[Droopy]

droopy,

When my African American friends down here in Texas ask me about the racial past of our Church, you'll forgive me if I don't dismiss their questions with your reply of "just get over it"!

This is the callous nature of some members I've had to avoid and overcome for years.

I'll just correct Dan here in using the term "African American" and translate it as "black friends", just so we are clear that none of his friends are first generation African immigrants. If they are, then I stand corrected.

Secondly, my comment of "getting over it" was aimed at the whole obsession with race, identity politics and racial grievance that has driven and kept the twitching corpse of the "civil rights" movement alive, zombie-like, long after its legitimate intellectual and moral claims had been accepted and realized.

We should also get over the priesthood ban, just as some need to get over plural marriage, prop 8, abortion, earrings, tattoos, etc., and start living valiantly. I do not claim this to be easy, only that it is necessary to achieve all the promises of the gospel in this life and that to come.

[ProvoGirl]

DanGB- I want to introduce you to this new and miraculous feature called a "Search" Box.

It is a means by which wandering souls such as yourself can look up any of the SEVEN THOUSAND THREADS ON THIS PARTICULAR DEAD HORSE OF A TOPIC without opening yet another meaningless thread for the purpose of cynical race-baiting, playing irrelevant "gotchas", or reinventing the damned wheel.

We've beaten this topic to death.

The priesthood ban was NOT doctrine.

We don't KNOW precisely where or how it originated- there's a lot of uninformed speculation, but precious few facts.

We KNOW that certain people who might've fallen under the Ban were given the Priesthood before it was implemented.

We KNOW that it was lifted by Revelation and commandment in 1978.

We KNOW that many of the rationalizations given for the ban were wrong, if not out-right racist and offensive.

We KNOW Mormons as a people were no more racist- and frequently LESS racist- than their contemporaries- and that Mormon policies toward and treatment towards African-Americans were often considered radically progressive.

There: you are now in possession of all of the relevant facts concerning the Priesthood Ban.

Thank you for your interest, and please do your OWN homework from now on.

Hmm. Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Selek, there are a few people that have logged on here today wanting to 'surf' the new topics and just see what is "goin'on". You say to "Do your...(how was that)...OWN homework". "Do a search. I'm bettin' he has done that. All you have to do is google "Blacks and the Priesthood" and Pandora's box opens up. What's the fun in that? It seems to me he is 'hankering' for a discussion on the matter. This topic is always interesting and just because you average somewhere around 6 posts every single day (Wow. You really like this place)...every day of the year, and are bored because you have read probably everything that might be said about the topic in a forum discussion, doesn't mean that a person (such as myself) wouldn't find this subject interesting. I haven't been on here for over 2 years and this was the first thread I clicked on. A little 'dialogue' is what I was looking for even though I have read dozens of talks, websites, etc. about this.

I do find it funny that we are already on page 4.

[jwhitlock]

Actually, Jwhit, this first quote is genuine, and has been cited several times in the last three of these dead-horse threads.

The rest of the prose, however....

Thanks. I need to remember the methodology of using a valid lead-in phrase to move to the real purpose for the attack.

I'll post this question / answer from Darius Gray (who has some excellent insight into the whole issue) that I find pertinent:

Q: Is there still racism in the church?

There is racism in the world. There is racism in the United States. Sadly, I think there is a resurgence in racism. I think I am seeing more now than I've seen in forty years. Is there racism in the church? Yes, because we are a cross-section of the United States, of the people here. Now, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints racist? No, never has been. But some of those people within the church have those tendencies. You have to separate the two. (My bolding)

The more I think about Dan's slander about our Church leaders being racist - to justify his own weak assumptions - the more it becomes evident that understanding that "we just don't know" is absolutely correct. No apology needed, just the usual ongoing efforts to live up to the covenants that we have made within the framework of the restored gospel.

I'm still waiting for Dan to confirm whether he things that the 1978 declaration was revelation or not. In fact, I'd also be interested in finding out if Dan thinks that the priesthood we hold is really from God or not. Questions, questions.

[jwhitlock]

It seems to me he is 'hankering' for a discussion on the matter.

Not really. This isn't the first time Dan has posted this kind of stuff, and not the first time he hasn't been able to back up any of his claims with hard evidence. He just wants a stage for one of his pet agendas, which is to make a "racist" Church (his characterization) apologize for something that he "knows" was not based on revelation.

While I can understand selek being impatient with him, I find it far more enlightening to point out Dan's inconsistencies. He basically hangs himself every time he re-opens up this particular "apology" issue that he has.

[Droopy]

Exactly. There is no getting over it because if the church wants to grow or connected with non members with half a brain and the internet, then it should actually be made quite clear by the church whether it was policy or revelation. The church should make it so clear, which they could do with a living prophet, so as to remove any doubt to the question. We should not even have to address this question but..........

Maybe the Brethren, at present, don't know and don't have an answer. How then, if this is the case, can they "remove any doubt" with a public statement?

As I've stated many times, we live by faith here, to a great extent, line upon line, here a little, and there a little.

We are in an arena here, an arena of conflict, struggle and thinking on our feet without all the answers being placed before us at every hand.

I mean, what fun would that be? Doubt as to certain things is a part of the mortal arena. The question is, do we have a testimony? Are we living on borrowed light, or through our own?

But why wait for the Church to make an official statement? Any of us can knnow, if the Lord so wills it, through prayer and the power of the Holy Ghost, the truth of all things, including the priesthood ban.

Its on our knees where much of this is untangled and the rough edges smoothed.

[selek]

Hmm. Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Selek, there are a few people that have logged on here today wanting to 'surf' the new topics and just see what is "goin'on". You say to "Do your...(how was that)...OWN homework". "Do a search. I'm bettin' he has done that.

All you have to do is google "Blacks and the Priesthood" and Pandora's box opens up. What's the fun in that? It seems to me he is 'hankering' for a discussion on the matter.

Hi Provo Girl.

You apparently missed DanGB's admission (against interest) that this thread wasn't a serious attempt at conversation or learning.

It was- from the git-go- nothing more than an excuse to trot out his pet issue and flog the Church as racist and bigoted.

DanGB was never interested in learning anything, he just wanted to preen and posture a bit.

This topic is always interesting and just because you average somewhere around 6 posts every single day (Wow. You really like this place)...every day of the year, and are bored because you have read probably everything that might be said about the topic in a forum discussion, doesn't mean that a person (such as myself) wouldn't find this subject interesting.

I understand and agree. It's not genuine discussion to which I object.

It's another round of "Bash them durn racust Marminz" which gets my goat.

But as illustrated, DanGB was interested in the former, not the latter.

I haven't been on here for over 2 years and this was the first thread I clicked on. A little 'dialogue' is what I was looking for even though I have read dozens of talks, websites, etc. about this.

I have absolutely no objection to dialogue.

I simply loathe race-baiters, and have no use for baseless conjecture or worse, ignorant speculation.

I do find it funny that we are already on page 4.

Yeah, well, six posts per day do tend to add up.

[DanGB]

My goodness! First you claim this: " I know through church documents, our standard works, prayer and personal revelation that the ban had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our Heavenly Father."

And then you tell us you can't provide any evidence!

The fun never stops!

One word will do:

"Comprehension"!

[selek]

One word will do:

"Comprehension"!

One word will indeed do.

Unfortunately, that word is "Dodge".

Because that's what you're doing here.

You claim you know, but refuse to provide any evidence for HOW you know.

You're ducking and weaving, trying to avoid the admission, but it's there all the same.

[Droopy]

This topic is always interesting and just because you average somewhere around 6 posts every single day

I've been online and involved in message boards and email lists since 1997, and believe me, its long past the "interesting" stage.

As with so much of anti-Mormon criticism, all has been plausibly and sincerely answered over and over and over again ad infinitum, to the degree that the reasons for the ban can be answered with any veracity, but the issue doesn't die because the larger critical agenda never dies.

Primarily, at this juncture the priesthood ban is, for the most part, a banquet for trolls.

[jwhitlock]

Maybe the Brethren, at present, don't know and don't have an answer. How then, if this is the case, can they "remove any doubt" with a public statement?

No! It can't be! Prophets always have an answer for everything, don't they??

If they don't, they - gasp - must not be real prophets!!

Or at least that seems to be the logic of some people...

[jwhitlock]

One word will do:

"Comprehension"!

Evidently, it is difficult for a yutz like me to "comprehend" the clear, self-evident truths that you so prophetically proclaim.

Nevertheless, it's been fun pointing out how inconsistent you are, while you respond only that we can't "comprehend" you.

Actually, you're pretty much correct. I don't comprehend you. You're on a totally different plane than I am; I just don't get people who hang themselves by their own statements without understanding what's going on.

In the meantime, for our continued edification and comprehension, you can enlighten us further on your position by answering the following two questions that I have previously posed:

- Am I correct in remembering that you don't accept the 1978 declaration on priesthood as revelation?

- Do you believe that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold the keys to the true priesthood of God, restored in the last days?

And, I'll add a third one:

- Do you believe that all the presidents of the Church since Joseph Smith have been true prophets of God, guided by Him in leading His Church in the last days?

I'm really, really interested in your answers - and I'll try hard to comprehend them.

[Skylla]

This thread is on the verge of being closed. Tone it down.

Skylla

[ACW]

droopy,

When my African American friends down here in Texas ask me about the racial past of our Church, you'll forgive me if I don't dismiss their questions with your reply of "just get over it"!

This is the callous nature of some members I've had to avoid and overcome for years.

Direct your African American friends to the Genesis Group website. It should answer some of you questions better than this board. And Marvin Perkins is wonderful about answering emails.

[DanGB]

But why wait for the Church to make an official statement? Any of us can knnow, if the Lord so wills it, through prayer and the power of the Holy Ghost, the truth of all things, including the priesthood ban.

This is precisely how I came to know the truth w respect to my conclusions on this matter. This and the documented church standards and history.

[kamenraider]

When I reflect upon the Prophet's statements and remember what happened to three of our nation's presidents who were very active in the Negro cause, I am sobered by their demise. They went contrary to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith -- unwittingly, no doubt, but nevertheless, the prophecy of Joseph Smith, "... those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel," has and will continue to be fulfilled.

In this respect, let me give you a personal experience. A friend of mine in Arizona -- not a Church member -- a great champion of the colored race -- came to me after my call into the Twelve, and acknowledged President McKay to be a Prophet of God. He wanted me to ask President McKay to inquire of the Lord to see if the Lord would not lift the curse from the colored race and give them the privileges of the Priesthood. I explained to him that the Lord had placed the curse upon the Negro, which denied him the Priesthood; therefore it was the Lord's responsibility -- not man's -- to change His decision. This friend of mine met a very tragic end by drowning. He was a most enthusiastic advocate of the colored cause and went about promoting for them all the privileges, social opportunities, and participation enjoyed by the Whites.

--Elder Delbert L. Stapley, of the Quorum of the Twelve, letter to Governor George W. Romney, January 23, 1964 see HERE.

[DanGB]

In the meantime, for our continued edification and comprehension, you can enlighten us further on your position by answering the following two questions that I have previously posed:

- Am I correct in remembering that you don't accept the 1978 declaration on priesthood as revelation?

- Do you believe that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold the keys to the true priesthood of God, restored in the last days?

And, I'll add a third one:

- Do you believe that all the presidents of the Church since Joseph Smith have been true prophets of God, guided by Him in leading His Church in the last days?

I don't do public TR interviews, sorry.

[AtticusFinch]

Actually, Jwhit, this first quote is genuine, and has been cited several times in the last three of these dead-horse threads.

The rest of the prose, however....

Oh and Finch?

The First Presidency statement said the police was "REVELATION", not "DOCTRINE".

Not sure what the police have to do about it. And it if it a DIRECT COMMANDMENT from God, isn't that doctrine? If God gives a direct commandment about He wants His Church run, isn't that Doctrine?

[selek]

Your sneering over a minor typo not withstanding, the answer is, "Of course not."

Unless and until the Lord specifies his guidance to be recorded as doctrine, it is not.

It is not to be ignored, but it's not doctrine unless specified as such.

The prophets and GA's have specified repeatedly the Ban was NOT doctrine.

You are attempting to use innuendo and smarmy suggestion to imply something which is flatly contradicted by clear statements from those in a position to know.

You are not arguing in good faith.

[AtticusFinch]

Your sneering over a minor typo not withstanding, the answer is, "Of course not."

I was not sure it was a typo since the two words are totally different....a typo is when you hit a wrong key, not when you use a totally different word.

Unless and until the Lord specifies his guidance to be recorded as doctrine, it is not.

lol...then knock out the entire D&C because I have never seen where the section said, "this is doctrine". Nice try. But if it was commanded from God on how to operate His Church (which is wasn't, by the way, God never commanded that kind of racism) then it is doctrine, no matter how badly you need to deny it

You are attempting to use innuendo and smarmy suggestion to imply something which is flatly contradicted by clear statements from those in a position to know.

All I did was post a quote. I am not sure how quotes from YOUR leaders can be considered smarmy, but I guess I can agree

You are not arguing in good faith.

I am not arguing at all. Your leaders said God commanded His Church to be run a certain way.....that is doctrine.

doc

[wenglund]

Mr. Finch,

Perhaps you weren't aware, but dictionaries are intended to convey common usages of words. They aren't intended to dictate specific and subjective applications of terms. In other wotds, the dictionary doesn't empower you to tell us what is our doctine or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

AtticusFinch:

The wise discuss ideas, the unwashed masses discuss people, the ignorant discuss spelling.

The LDS accept the D&C as Scripture. Whether you do or not is immaterial.

I guess it was your different Jesus when he refused to go to any but the Jews.

That is a silly argument. Policy can and does change sometimes often. Doctrine not so much.

No. The ban was never a doctrine. The doctrine is that the Lord can extend to or withdraw from the Priesthood from whomever for whatever reason he wants. He does not answer to us. We answer to him.

The policy was that for a short time the Priesthood was not to be extended to the Blacks, and that someday that policy would change. That change came in 1978.

[DanGB]

I think Fitch may have a good and valid point here. Has there ever been revelation that directs policy and practice of our sacred ordinances and/or blessings that is NOT deemed doctrine?

[thesometimesaint]

DanGB:

Without going into specifics. I would say that much of what happens in the Temple is not doctrine. But does in fact convey doctrinal ideas.

[DanGB]

DanGB:

Without going into specifics. I would say that much of what happens in the Temple is not doctrine. But does in fact convey doctrinal ideas.

So are you concluding the temple ceremony is not doctrine?