131 replies to this topic

[DanGB]

In a post from last week, the question of doctrine, and how it is determined was raised.  The discrimination of the church against blacks has been discussed a lot but it raises an interesting question:  "Was the withholding of the priesthood based on doctrine"?  If so, what was the specific doctrine under the rules of our doctrine?  If not, was it merely based upon someones "speculation"?  Then, if so, who's speculation?

[ERayR]

DanGB, on 03 July 2010 - 04:48 PM, said:

In a post from last week, the question of doctrine, and how it is determined was raised.  The discrimination of the church against blacks has been discussed a lot but it raises an interesting question:  "Was the withholding of the priesthood based on doctrine"?  If so, what was the specific doctrine under the rules of our doctrine?  If not, was it merely based upon someones "speculation"?  Then, if so, who's speculation?

Don't know and as far as I know neither does anyone else.  Here is a little reading on the subject:  http://fairlds.org/apol/ai080.html

[handys003]

Gee DGB everytime you post it's about Blacks and the PH.

Besides it ain't Blacks. It's Africans who were banned.

Edited by handys003, 03 July 2010 - 05:24 PM.

[Uncle Dale]

handys003, on 03 July 2010 - 05:23 PM, said:

...
Besides it ain't Blacks. It's Africans who were banned.

Did that include Arab Africans from Lybia, Tunisia, etc.?
My wife taught some of them English and they were blacker
than coal -- but swore they were true descendants of
Shem and Abraham.

???

UD

[handys003]

I'm not sure. I'm sure the church withheld the PH if they were African-American  or African- European in that sense from slavery day association. However they did not hold the PH from African/Asian Polynesians. Elder Delai in the photo below is Fijian. His great, great grandfather was one of the first Bishops in the church during Fiji's missionary days.
He's on my wifes right side. That's left side if you are the viewer.

Attached Files

•  05-07-2010 001.JPG   895.58K   18 downloads

Edited by handys003, 03 July 2010 - 05:57 PM.

[selek]

DanGB, on 03 July 2010 - 04:48 PM, said:

In a post from last week, the question of doctrine, and how it is determined was raised.  The discrimination of the church against blacks has been discussed a lot but it raises an interesting question:  "Was the withholding of the priesthood based on doctrine"?  If so, what was the specific doctrine under the rules of our doctrine?  If not, was it merely based upon someones "speculation"?  Then, if so, who's speculation?

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.

Edited by selek, 03 July 2010 - 07:09 PM.

[StuddleyG]

DanGB, on 03 July 2010 - 04:48 PM, said:

In a post from last week, the question of doctrine, and how it is determined was raised.  The discrimination of the church against blacks has been discussed a lot but it raises an interesting question:  "Was the withholding of the priesthood based on doctrine"?  If so, what was the specific doctrine under the rules of our doctrine?  If not, was it merely based upon someones "speculation"?  Then, if so, who's speculation?

Today in the church, everything about the priesthood ban is summed up in three words:  WE DON'T KNOW.  In the earlier days, there were a whole bunch of crazy explanations about it being thrown around.  But, the general authorities of the church made it quite clear that the ban could only be lifted with God's consent.  So yes, it was doctine in that sense.  All though I like to think of it more as a policy than a doctrine.  

The best explanation that I've heard is that because of the way society was at the time, leaders of the church felt was best not give blacks the priesthood.  And that God simply allowed this policy to exist until after the civil rights movement.  That's just speculation though.

[selek]

StuddleyG, on 03 July 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

So yes, it was doctine in that sense.  

This is false.  The Priesthood Ban was never doctrine.  Even while it was in place, it was acknowledged to be a temporary thing.

Doctrine, by definition, is not temporary.

Quote

All though I like to think of it more as a policy than a doctrine.  

Considering that those with the authority to speak on that matter have stated point blank that it was only policy, this is the correct interpretation.

Take care, Studdley, that you don't fall into DanGB's trap.

For once you "admit" that the Ban was "doctrine", he will move onto the "God is unchanging, therefore his doctrine doesn't change therefore the Mormon Church doesn't have doctrine therefore the Mormon Church is false" argument.

Racebaiting and "what is doctrine" games such as DanGB is playing are old-hat around here.

He's not asking in good faith, but to advance an agenda.

Quote

The best explanation that I've heard is that because of the way society was at the time, leaders of the church felt was best not give blacks the priesthood.  And that God simply allowed this policy to exist until after the civil rights movement.

That's one explanation.  Whether or not it's a GOOD one depends upon whether or not the Ban actually originated with God or with Man.

At this point, we don't know- but the evidence suggests the former rather than the latter.

Quote

  That's just speculation though.

You got that right.  

[StuddleyG]

selek, on 03 July 2010 - 07:43 PM, said:

This is false.  The Priesthood Ban was never doctrine.  Even while it was in place, it was acknowledged to be a temporary thing.

Doctrine, by definition, is not temporary.

I've never heard that definition of "doctrine" before. That makes sense.  So in that case, the Word of Wisdom isn't doctrine either since it is only a law for our time.

[selek]

StuddleyG, on 03 July 2010 - 07:49 PM, said:

I've never heard that definition of "doctrine" before. That makes sense.  So in that case, the Word of Wisdom isn't doctrine either since it is only a law for our time.

Correct- you might also consider that "doctrine" consists of eternal laws which apply to everyone.

For example, Christ's atonement and grace being the only means to reach Heaven (a/o exaltation).

It's doctrine because it applies to everyone and does not change.

It was ordained before the foundation of the Earth and will last through all eternity.

The Word of Wisdom, on the other hand, applies only to those who've covenanted to obey it.

The Word of Wisdoms wasn't implemented as a commandment but a suggestion- that changed after it was well-established.

The principles which underlie the Word of Wisdom, on the other hand- obedience, faith, and blessings received only through obedience, ARE doctrine, even if the way they are applied (the WoW) itself is not.

The Word of Wisdom is an expression of doctrinal principles- even if it is not doctrine itself.

Edited by selek, 03 July 2010 - 08:00 PM.

[DanGB]

handys003, on 03 July 2010 - 05:23 PM, said:

Gee DGB everytime you post it's about Blacks and the PH.

Besides it ain't Blacks. It's Africans who were banned.

Sorry handy,

The church down here in Austin doesn't seem to mind questions.

But it does pose some serious reflection about our racist past.  If the ban was not based on doctrine, what was it based upon??? Purely speculation or distaste for the african American back then?

If it was not based upon doctrine, why did the leaders need to pray for a revelation until 1978 to overturn the ban?

These are, frankly, the types of questions I get from prospects and outsiders quite frequently!  They seem to be excellent questions.  How would the Church or members answer them???

[BCSpace]

Quote

Was the withholding of the priesthood based on doctrine"?

Yes.  The ban was doctrine and still is doctrine.  It happened officially and is not apologized for (nor should it be).

Quote

If so, what was the specific doctrine under the rules of our doctrine?

The rules of our doctrine are that what's published by the Church is doctrine.  However, not only is the bans doctrine, it is also based in canon (Abraham 1).

[ACW]

selek, on 03 July 2010 - 07:02 PM, said:

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.

         

[DanGB]

BCSpace, on 03 July 2010 - 10:38 PM, said:

Yes.  The ban was doctrine and still is doctrine.  It happened officially and is not apologized for (nor should it be).

When did it happen, if you really know and are not just speculating??

Quote

The rules of our doctrine are that what's published by the Church is doctrine.  However, not only is the bans doctrine, it is also based in canon (Abraham 1).

What about Abraham 1 specifically provides the priesthood ban and where is the official church exlanation or support of your conclusion???

[handys003]

BCSpace, on 03 July 2010 - 10:38 PM, said:

Yes.  The ban was doctrine and still is doctrine.  It happened officially and is not apologized for (nor should it be).



The rules of our doctrine are that what's published by the Church is doctrine.  However, not only is the bans doctrine, it is also based in canon (Abraham 1).

So therefore by your assertion Elder Delai (black) cannot hold the PH? CFR Doctrine of PH ban today and in the past.

[DanGB]

StuddleyG, on 03 July 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

The best explanation that I've heard is that because of the way society was at the time, leaders of the church felt was best not give blacks the priesthood.  And that God simply allowed this policy to exist until after the civil rights movement.  That's just speculation though.

So do you believe our doctrines are up for public debate and vote as we capitulaed to the Jewish community and agreed to ask for their permission to preform our sacred batisms?  Seems like we are a church guided by public perception. Compromise  to save face???

[ACW]

DanGB, on 03 July 2010 - 10:30 PM, said:

If it was not based upon doctrine, why did the leaders need to pray for a revelation until 1978 to overturn the ban?

From my studying this topic I read that the prayers to lift the ban started many, many years before the ban was lifted.  The Church was growing all over the world...almost including Africa.  There was a man who wrote letter to the First Presidency requesting the Church be organized in his country...sorry do not recall which country.  Anyway this man took it upon himself to organize a branch unofficially.  The Church did send him manuels just not the priesthood.  This is documented somewhere...

Quote

These are, frankly, the types of questions I get from prospects and outsiders quite frequently!  They seem to be excellent questions.  How would the Church or members answer them???

Get these videos.
Blacks in the Scriptures
and
Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons

They are not put out by the Church...but still worth the effort.

[Kevin Christensen]

No discussion of the LDS priesthood practice can possibly be complete unless it recognizes the larger context.  How Western culture used poor readings of the Bible to justify slavery.  All of those arguments were imported into LDS thinking, and did NOT originate with the LDS.

http://byustudies.by...aspx?title=7582

Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA

[jwhitlock]

Kevin Christensen, on 04 July 2010 - 06:18 AM, said:

No discussion of the LDS priesthood practice can possibly be complete unless it recognizes the larger context.  How Western culture used poor readings of the Bible to justify slavery.  All of those arguments were imported into LDS thinking, and did NOT originate with the LDS.

http://byustudies.by...aspx?title=7582

Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA

Thanks, Kevin.

Unfortunately, the OP has already demonstrated a particular bias and agenda on this subject; it's not the first time he has posted in this manner.  He's not looking for explanations, but for a stage.

[yesucan2]

ACW, on 03 July 2010 - 10:51 PM, said:

         

Although, I share your feelings, I still think that the topic has brought up some interesting issues relative to the idea.   The question was not if it was doctrine, but if it was based on doctrine.

Obviously it was based on doctrine, but what doctrine or doctrines was it based on?

Was it based on the doctrine of the pre-existence?   Was it based on the doctrine of obedience? Did it have something to do with valiancy as some have proposed?

What do we learn because of it or what does it teach us?

For instance, could it be considered another witness of the love that God has for His children?

I think there are a lot of things we could consider relative this topic that one may utilize to stretch their minds if they are inclined.

It may even be useful as an indicator of our agendas.   For someone looking for an excuse not to live the gospel, it could provide a convenient excuse.

Or....Since we know so little in an official way, is it something that should be left for our individual ponderings???