131 replies to this topic

[thesometimesaint]

According to President McKay the ban was never doctrine but policy

[yesucan2]

thesometimesaint, on 04 July 2010 - 08:52 AM, said:

According to President McKay the ban was never doctrine but policy

The question was not about whether it was doctrine.   The question was whether it was based  on doctrine.

Unless God is capricious, it was obviously based on doctrine whether known to us or not known to us.

[thesometimesaint]

yesucan2:

The direct doctrine is that the Lord can and does withhold the Priesthood from whatever group he wants. Further the Lord has yet to provide any explanation as to why he has withheld the Priesthood from any group. We are free to speculate, and unless proclaimed as incorrect by the Church it will continue to be just speculation.

[selek]

yesucan2, on 04 July 2010 - 08:17 AM, 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.

And yet none of these "interesting questions" can be answered authoritatively without knowing authoritatively from whence the doctrin arose.

Unless we know that God DID command the Ban (a matter of fierce and irrelevant debate), we cannot know why he ordered it.

We would be engaged in the very sort of useless speculation that is now proving so embarrasing to the Church- and which demagogues and fools harp on in thread after thread after thread.  

Such speculation will resolve nothing.  It is a pointless exercise and a waste of bandwidth that adds not one jot or tittle to anyone's salvation.

Quote

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?

As some have proposed- and as the Church has authoritatively rejected.

The Church has stated quite clearly that the idea that blacks were less valiant is BUNK.

Quote

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.

  Such as?

Please- give us one lesson that can be taught authoritatively and substantively from this episode, that cannot be taught more effectively from other sources.

Quote

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.

Just as those looking for an excuse to malign and tear down the Church have used it for decades.

Quote

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

And again, the question is: How does mulling over this, and engaging in useless (and worse than useless) or ignorant speculation bring you any closer to Christ?

You must postulate and speculate that the Savior is actually a five-legged chicken with pink feathers who lives in a massive jelly donut orbiting the fifth moon of Jupiter- but what eternal verities does such idiotic speculation reveal?

The five-legged chicken with pink feathers is outlandish- but is it any less releant, or any more grounded in what we know than sitting around speculating about the Priesthood Ban would be?  

The bottom line is We don't know why the Ban was implemented, or even when or how.

Sitting around tossing guesses into a vacuum would be nothing more than an exercise in fantasy, in gossip, and in speaking ill of the Lord's annointed.

sometimesaint said:

The direct doctrine is that the Lord can and does withhold the Priesthood from whatever group he wants. Further the Lord has yet to provide any explanation as to why he has withheld the Priesthood from any group. We are free to speculate, and unless proclaimed as incorrect by the Church it will continue to be just speculation.

Hear hear!

[StuddleyG]

yesucan2, on 04 July 2010 - 08:17 AM, 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???

Maybe it was based on the doctrine of agency or free will.  God gave Isreal a king only because they begged for one.  This was an example of God allowing Isreal agency.  The the people in the early days in the church did not wish to give blacks the priesthood, because that's the way things were back then.  God allows them to have their agancy by allowing the priesthood ban to exist.  Just a thought.

[thesometimesaint]

StuddleyG:

Agency yes, but I don't believe it was just the way thing were. But I think it had more to do with the fact that slave, of any color, are not free to act for themselves.

[kamenraider]

Quote

Alma 13:1-5
  1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.
  2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.
  3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
  4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.
  5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

The 1949 First Presidency statement says:

Quote

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

There seems to be a connection between rejecting the Spirit of God in the pre-mortal world and rejecting the power of the holy priesthood here.

Quote

D&C 132:10-11
  10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?
  11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?

Edited by kamenraider, 04 July 2010 - 01:53 PM.

[wenglund]

Seems to me that this issue was made moot more than a quarter of century ago, which makes me wonder why it continues to stick in the craw of some people. Is there something I can do to help those people get unstuck from the distant past and move on with their lives? Don't you think it about time to retire the bell bottom pants and the "we shall overcome" chant?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Glenn101]

wenglund, on 04 July 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

Seems to me that this issue was made moot more than a quarter of century ago, which makes me wonder why it continues to stick in the craw of some people. Is there something I can do to help those people get unstuck from the distant past and move on with their lives? Don't you think it about time to retire the bell bottom pants and the "we shall overcome" chant?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Because    is a favorite pastime.

Glenn  

[Droopy]

Quote

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

Quote

There seems to be a connection between rejecting the Spirit of God in the pre-mortal world and rejecting the power of the holy priesthood here.

The above verse mentions nothing regarding the preexistence.  Following a pattern of the Lord's dealings with his children we see among other peoples, the actions of one generation can have lasting effects upon their posterity according to a larger plan known to the Lord and for which I offer no explanation.  The Priesthood ban had nothing to do with "race" as commonly understood at all (unless one's benefit of the doubt runs against the Church no matter what else may be brought to the table) and everything to do with linage.  It is black African's linage and its connection to an ancient ethnic group who were denied the right to the Priesthood that is important here, not any modern concept of "race".

The idea that black people were "less valiant" in the preexistence was never settled gospel doctrine.  At best, it was a longstanding theological explanation offered within the context of the cultural biases that existed in the age in which it was formulated.  Its fairly easy to understand how this idea was constructed.  There is a body of teaching in the Church that, I think it safe to say, the vast majority of LDS would agree is true to the extent it has been revealed, which tells us that, as with this life (our second estate) our choices, faith, diligence and consistency in gaining light, knowledge and intelligence in the preexistent world (our first estate) have conditioned and, to some degree, determined the perimeters and specifically calibrated experiences of this life.  This would be as true for a black person born in the deep South at the turn of the century, a Mongol born in the 12th century, or a Jew born in Germany just in time for the Holocaust.  Are the experiences of all of these a direct expression of preexistent sloth?

Perhaps yes, and perhaps no.  This is all a matter of "perhaps" because I'm convinced that each of our lives have been "fine tuned" by the Lord, whether that life lasts 80 years or eight minutes, to provide the body of experiences and perceptions that individual requires for his continued progression and exaltation.  Those experiences will include contact with both the sweet and the bitter.  I think it quite possible that being born at a certain time, under certain less than optimal circumstances, or with certain handicaps, could be just as much a reward for preexistent valiance as an indication of some lack of effort in the premortal world.

The key for me is that each of our lives involves specific developmental tasks, challenges and experiences that are key to us as eternal, spiritual beings moving through a mortal probationary state, and hence, reaching back into premortality to find an "explanation" for either a silver spoon or birth on the "wrong side of the tracks" is fraught with difficulties.

The continual cry of "racism!" whenever this (or numerous other similar issues) arises seems to me to be more like an intellectual trope than a serious reflective analysis, and one that has done as much damage, in its own way, to human happiness and civility as any forms of the old racism ever did.

[Lloyd Dobler]

kamenraider, on 04 July 2010 - 01:33 PM, said:

The 1949 First Presidency statement says:



There seems to be a connection between rejecting the Spirit of God in the pre-mortal world and rejecting the power of the holy priesthood here.

Kamenraider has the best music ever on his blog.  Freaking sweet!  Anybody with taste this good should be taken seriously and I am not joking.

Edited by Lloyd Dobler, 05 July 2010 - 11:36 AM.

[ACW]

yesucan2, on 04 July 2010 - 08:17 AM, 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?

Obviousy you have answered your own question so it is up to you to find that doctrine and share it.

Quote

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?

No, No, No.   Your questions are based on speculation not doctrine.

Quote

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

That God knows more that us.

Quote

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

~sigh~

Quote

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.

The problem is too much stretching leads to speculation and this topic has been overly speculated ....time to give it a rest and move on.

Quote

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.

Agreed...convenient excuse

Quote

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

Ponder away but whatever you come up with is just speculation.

[kamenraider]

Lloyd Dobler, on 05 July 2010 - 11:30 AM, said:

Kamenraider has the best music ever on his blog.  Freaking sweet!  Anybody with taste this good should be taken seriously and I am not joking.

Thanks. I was hesitant to put that stuff on there along with Church-related content, although I purposely tried to avoid songs with cussing. I plan on switching to a playlist of my favorite audio clips from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith when I switch my blog to being indexed by search engines (it's not now).

[handys003]

Guess DGB doesn't want to participate?

[All-Seeing Eye]

Since the ban was merely policy and not doctrine, I assume that the decision to rescind the ban was also policy, and not doctrine; I assume that it is merely current policy, and not doctrine, that all worthy males may hold the priesthood regardless of lineage.  I further assume that, therefore, the church might re-instate the ban sometime in the future.  No?

[USU78]

All-Seeing Eye, on 05 July 2010 - 10:15 PM, said:

Since the ban was merely policy and not doctrine, I assume that the decision to rescind the ban was also policy, and not doctrine; I assume that it is merely current policy, and not doctrine, that all worthy males may hold the priesthood regardless of lineage.  I further assume that, therefore, the church might re-instate the ban sometime in the future.  No?

No.  Read OD2.

Why speculate when you've got primary sources.

[thesometimesaint]

All-Seeing Eye:

Yes he can. In fact he still maintains a ban to this day. Women can not hold the Priesthood. Further the Lord can say that all blue eyes blonds are hereafter denied the Priesthood. I'm not a blue eyed blond so it wouldn't effect me personally, and I see no reason for such a ban. But it is his call.

[cinepro]

selek, on 04 July 2010 - 12:10 PM, said:

The Church has stated quite clearly that the idea that blacks were less valiant is BUNK.

Where did "the Church" clearly state that?

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.jefflinds...Race.shtml#skin

[cinepro]

thesometimesaint, on 06 July 2010 - 08:58 AM, said:

http://www.jefflinds...Race.shtml#skin

Since the statement involves claims of statements made by "the Church", I would expect a statement from a Church publication of some sort to satisfy the CFR.

Logical derivations on apologetic websites aren't exactly "the Church".