131 replies to this topic

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

That some members held that view is undisputed, but I know of nothing that shows that speculative belief to be Church doctrine. It is like trying to prove a negative. You can go through the Standard Works of the Church all you want. The doctrine of Blacks were less than valiant isn't there.

The closest I can come to a disclaimer is by BRM: "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
"http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/blacks/mcconkie_revelation.htm

[cinepro]

thesometimesaint, on 06 July 2010 - 09:36 AM, said:

cinepro:

That some members held that view is undisputed, but I know of nothing that shows that speculative belief to be Church doctrine. It is like trying to prove a negative. You can go through the Standard Works of the Church all you want. The doctrine of Blacks were less than valiant isn't there.

The closest I can come to a disclaimer is by BRM: "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
"http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/blacks/mcconkie_revelation.htm

Which part of OD2 rebuts the idea that blacks might have been less valiant in the pre-existence?

I agree that the idea is based on speculation and conjecture, and that it can also be refuted with speculation and conjecture.  

I was just curious what Selek was thinking of when he said "The Church has stated quite clearly that the idea that blacks were less valiant is BUNK," since he seemed to have  specific comment in mind and I can't remember the Church ever clearly addressing the issue.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

To Whom It May Concern:
On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:
In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.
President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:
June 8, 1978
To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:
Dear Brethren:
As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.
Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.
We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.
Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency
Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.
Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

OD2 doesn't specifically address the issue that I am aware of, or can find. Again I don't believe there is any specific doctrinal statement on the issue. But I'm willing to take BRM's statement at face value, and chalk any rationalization(s) for the ban as either without merit, and or just speculative.

[Droopy]

USU78, on 06 July 2010 - 06:09 AM, said:

No.  Read OD2.

Why speculate when you've got primary sources.

What fun is there in that?

[DanGB]

Quote

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

Selek,

There is a huge disconnect in logic and reason with this statement.  Unless we know God DID command the ban, for which there is no evidence, we have no reason believe such ban was commanded via revelation of doctrine.  As far as I know, there has never been a statement from the Church as to when and where this was revealed as doctrine.  Accordingly, blacks became singled out based upon skin color, and it obviously had nothing to do with "worthiness", which is why IMHO a Church apology is long overdue.

[ACW]

DanGB, on 06 July 2010 - 12:22 PM, said:

Selek,

There is a huge disconnect in logic and reason with this statement.  Unless we know God DID command the ban, for which there is no evidence, we have no reason believe such ban was commanded via revelation of doctrine.  As far as I know, there has never been a statement from the Church as to when and where this was revealed as doctrine.  Accordingly, blacks became singled out based upon skin color, and it obviously had nothing to do with "worthiness", which is why IMHO a Church apology is long overdue.

In the documentary called Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons   Rev. Cecil Murray was interviewed and he said President Hinckley apologized to him for the church's role in slavery and racism in America.


We have come Full Circle...... This video costs $25, get it, watch it then pass it on...unless you just enjoy

[Droopy]

deleted

Edited by Droopy, 06 July 2010 - 01:19 PM.

[Droopy]

DanGB, on 06 July 2010 - 12:22 PM, said:

Selek,

Accordingly, blacks became singled out based upon skin color,

Impossible, if we are going to be conceptually coherent about this.  As has already been pointed out, peoples of other nationalities and ethnic backgrounds, with skins as dark or darker than many Africans, were never restricted from the Melchizedek Priesthood.  Blacks were "singled out", if that is the correct term, because of linage.

Quote

and it obviously had nothing to do with "worthiness", which is why IMHO a Church apology is long overdue.

If the ban was an inspired policy, then "apologizing" for it would place the Brethren in conflict with the highest president of the Church, Jesus Christ, and appear to the world as a sign of submission to the secular world, and when the secular world smells blood, it goes for the throbbing throat of its prey.

I'm personally satisfied that the ban was something the Lord desired, for whatever reason, for the time it lasted, and I do not see this as in any essentials different from the other priesthood bans that have existed in history (most of the world's people, if the gospel history of this planet is an indication, have been under a "priesthood ban" for most of their histories.  White Europeans were under an effective ban, by having the gospel removed from them, for almost two thousand years.  Indeed, the entire world was under a gospel ban from the final disappearance of the Church (end of the 2nd century?), to the opening of this dispensation).

Shall we "get over it"?

Edited by Droopy, 06 July 2010 - 01:20 PM.

[Droopy]

ACW, on 06 July 2010 - 12:52 PM, said:

In the documentary called Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons   Rev. Cecil Murray was interviewed and he said President Hinckley apologized to him for the church's role in slavery and racism in America.

The 19th century LDS were generally abolitionist in their sentiments.  What role did the early Mormon church play is slavery and racism?  I think perhaps the Rev. Murray should be tasked with a CFR here.

Edited by Droopy, 06 July 2010 - 01:24 PM.

[selek]

DanGB, on 06 July 2010 - 12:22 PM, said:

Selek,

There is a huge disconnect in logic and reason with this statement.

  Only if one approaches it with certain ideological blinder on.

Quote

Unless we know God DID command the ban, for which there is no evidence, we have no reason believe such ban was commanded via revelation of doctrine.

This statement is false.  There is considerable evidence to suggest that the ban was commanded- despite it's never having been doctrine (nice attempt at sleight of hand there, by the way).  It is far more accurate to say that rhere is no conclusive proof.

The mere fact that it took so long to overturn despite the earnest prayers of both membership and members of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency indicates that there was more to it than the mere "whims of men".

Had it been mere error a/o prejudice on the part of the leaders of the period, David O. McKay and the others would have been able to overturn the policy out of hand.  That it took years of earnest supplication and prayerful petitioning of the Lord indicates that the Lord did not want the Ban overturned before 1978- which shoots the "them Marminz is just biguts" rationale in the foot.

Quote

As far as I know, there has never been a statement from the Church as to when and where this was revealed as doctrine.

  That's because it never was doctrine.  It was policy, despite your earnest and fervent wishes to the contary.  

Quote

Accordingly, blacks became singled out based upon skin color, and it obviously had nothing to do with "worthiness", which is why IMHO a Church apology is long overdue.

  Your opinion is worth precisely what we paid for it- and I (for one) want a refund.

Quote

Blacks were singled out because of lineage, not skin color.

  False again.  You're repeating an anti-Mormon (and politically correct) myth as though it were a Gospel truth, and in so doing, you are speaking ill of the Lord's anointed.

Just for the record- had the Ban not been lifted in 1978, I would have been barred from the Priesthood based on my lineage- despite the fact that my skin color appears downright Nordic.

In the antebellum South, I'd be called mulatto or Creole- though my grandfather and his father would have been found dripping from a tree for "dallying" with white women.

No one owes me an apology- nor do they owe my grandfathers, great-grandfathers, nor anyone else.

They were not deprived (by the Church) of anything to which they were entitled.

The Priesthood belongs to the Lord, and is his to bestow as he sees fit.  There is no right to the Priesthood.

None.

If the Lord were to suddenly decide tomorrow to limit his Priesthood to one-legged marsupials named Fred, then that's his right- and none of us would have any right to complain.

As has been stated, you are flogging a dead horse.

You are engaging in baseless gossip, wild speculation, and politically-correct race-baiting in an effort to justify your own ark-steadying and to grant yourself an undeserved pat on the back for being so "enlightened".

You are speaking ill of the Lord's annointed and engaging in meaningless posturing and empty rhetoric for the sole purpose of massaging your own ego.

I suggest that your ponder the simple fact that it is a privilege and a blessing to be a member of this Church- not a right.  

It is a privilege and a blessing to hold the Priesthood.

It is a gift- a commission and a trust granted by a benificent Heavenly Father, not a rite of passage or a mile-stone you can check off based upon years of membership.

None of us- not Gordon B.Hinckley, Thomas Monson, Jerry Lewis, or Mickey Mouse- have ANY RIGHT to the Priesthood.

It is not our due.

It is not our birthright.

It is not our heritage.

It is a privelege from the Lord than he can revoke or extend at any time.

Until you come up with solid, substantive, proof that the Church acted wrongly, you're just another *** braying in the field, proclaiming himself king of all he surveys.

Until you come up with solid, substantive, proof that the Church acted wrongly, you're just trumpeting your own preference for Babylon over Zion.

Edited by selek, 06 July 2010 - 01:40 PM.

[Droopy]

Selek, the Priesthood ban's central premise has to do with linage and that linage's specific and unique barring from the higher priesthood, as elucidated in the Pearl of Great Price.  Skin color (or, more broadly, race - a difficult concept to begin with) had nothing to do with it.  Saying this is hardly "politically correct" in any sense.   The politically correct position here is to blame the entire thing of LDS white racism and claim the ban was lifted due to cultural pressure.

There's no need to fight with me over this issue.  I'm all for letting it die on the vine, as is the case with most "racial issues" of my generation, that have long outlived their toxic half lives.

[selek]

Droopy, on 06 July 2010 - 02:02 PM, said:

Selek, the Priesthood ban's central premise has to do with linage and that linage's specific and unique barring from the higher priesthood, as elucidated in the Pearl of Great Price. Skin color (or, more broadly, race - a difficult concept to begin with) had nothing to do with it.  Saying this is hardly "politically correct" in any sense.

I agree-= but that's not the political correctness to which I was referring.  

Quote

The politically correct position here is to blame the entire thing of LDS white racism and claim the ban was lifted due to cultural pressure.

And it is this bit of historical revisionism (for the sake of stroking one's own ego) that I was decrying.

Quote

There's no need to fight with me over this issue.  I'm all for letting it die on the vine, as is the case with most "racial issues" of my generation, that have long outlived their toxic half lives.

I agree- but so long as fools, charlatans, and apostates insist upon using this vile and profane falshood to smear the Church, it is incumbent upon us to expose them for the dupes, tools, fools, and vipers that they really are.

[DanGB]

Quote

That's because it never was doctrine. It was policy, despite your earnest and fervent wishes to the contary.

Ok, point us to the policy statement initiating the ban after Joseph Smith allowed the priesthood to blacks!  

And since when did the Church require revelation to overturn "policy"??  Why didn't we just issue a new policy statement?

I think you are just speculating at best here.

[Jaybear]

Droopy, on 06 July 2010 - 02:02 PM, said:

Selek, the Priesthood ban's central premise has to do with linage and that linage's specific and unique barring from the higher priesthood, as elucidated in the Pearl of Great Price.  Skin color (or, more broadly, race - a difficult concept to begin with) had nothing to do with it.

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

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.  

BTW, since you claimed (and Selek agreed) that the ban "had to do with linage" whose lineage was banned, and why?

[DanGB]

Quote

Shall we "get over it"?

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.

[selek]

DanGB, on 06 July 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

Ok, point us to the policy statement initiating the ban after Joseph Smith allowed the priesthood to blacks!  

As has been stated repeatedly, there is no precise statement of policy initiating the Ban.  Nor is there any statement initiating the Ban as doctrine, either.

We do, however, have repeated statements from the First Presidency (who are in a position to know, don't you think?) that it was NOT doctrine.  It was policy.

Quote

And since when did the Church require revelation to overturn "policy"??  Why didn't we just issue a new policy statement?

  Apparently, because the policy was initiated by the Lord.  Had it been initiated by men (and had it been wrong), then the Lord would have corrected it as soon as he was asked- if not sooner.

That the Lord did not do so indicates that the Ban was something more than Brigham Young "cutting out" some of the competition.

That the did not do so indicates that the Ban was something more just than "a bunch of patriarchal white crackers keeping the brothers down".

That it was something more, however, does not automagically mean it was doctrine.  We have clear statements specifying that it was not.

Quote

I think you are just speculating at best here.

  Which was, if you recall, the point I was making at the outset.  You are casting aspersions on good men based solely upon your own ego and historical myopia.  You are smearing and belittling the Lord's anointed based solely on empty speculation and a need to seem cosmopolitan and enlightened.

As I said before, until you can come up with substantive proof that the Church acted wrongly, then you're just throwing stones.

Until you can come up with substantive proof that the Ban was not of God, then you're just grandstanding and bearing false witness.

The difference between your speculation and mine is this: I don't need to prove the Church wtong to satisfy my position.

You have no such luxury.

[Lloyd Dobler]

DanGB, on 06 July 2010 - 02:58 PM, said:

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.

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..........

[selek]

Lloyd Dobler, on 06 July 2010 - 03:50 PM, said:

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

As opposed to say "members without half a brain"?   Frank and honest discussion of these issues- with those directly affected by them- isn't an issue, and your derisive caricature of members of this Church isn't helping your position.

Flogging this dead horse for polemical gain, on the other hand, is an issue, since it's done out of malice and divisiveness, rather than charity and love.

Quote

, then it should actually be made quite clear by the church whether it was policy or revelation.

  Bull.  The honest answer is "We don't know".

We should stick to the honest answer, rather than trying to sell something politically correct.  

Quote

  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..........

  Thank you for your opinion.  Now kindly deal with the facts.

Those are as follows:

• We don'tknow precisely how or why the Ban was implemented.
  
• We do know that it was overturned by Revelation in 1978.
  
• We do know that no one entitled to the Priesthood was ever denied it.  
  
• We do know that no blessings the Lord wished a person to receive (and for which they are worthy) have been (or can be) denied to them.  
  
• We do know that the Ban does not affect anyone living today (let alone considering joining the Church.
  
• We do know that the Church has clearly renounced the racist justifications and rationalizations offered- including the "Blacks were not valiant in the Preexistence" nonsense.  

Edited by selek, 06 July 2010 - 04:02 PM.

[StuddleyG]

selek, on 06 July 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

• We do know that the Church has clearly renounced the racist justifications and rationalizations offered- including the "Blacks were not valiant in the Preexistence" nonsense.

Where can these renouncements be found? I know of BRM's statement.  Was that an official church statement?

Edited by StuddleyG, 06 July 2010 - 04:48 PM.

[Bikeemikey]

selek, on 06 July 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

As opposed to say "members without half a brain"?   Frank and honest discussion of these issues- with those directly affected by them- isn't an issue, and your derisive caricature of members of this Church isn't helping your position.

Flogging this dead horse for polemical gain, on the other hand, is an issue, since it's done out of malice and divisiveness, rather than charity and love.

  Bull.  The honest answer is "We don't know".

We should stick to the honest answer, rather than trying to sell something politically correct.  


  Thank you for your opinion.  Now kindly deal with the facts.

Those are as follows:

• We don'tknow precisely how or why the Ban was implemented.
  
• We do know that it was overturned by Revelation in 1978.
  
• We do know that no one entitled to the Priesthood was ever denied it.  
  
• We do know that no blessings the Lord wished a person to receive (and for which they are worthy) have been (or can be) denied to them.  
  
• We do know that the Ban does not affect anyone living today (let alone considering joining the Church.
  
• We do know that the Church has clearly renounced the racist justifications and rationalizations offered- including the "Blacks were not valiant in the Preexistence" nonsense.  

Selek,

Why are you so hostile? Perhaps this is a dead horse for you, doesn't mean others timetables for understanding and finding personal resolution on this issue ought to be belittled because they are asking questions you have personally put to rest.

I also think, having spent the last hour reading over this thread that you have no answers nor contribution to make on this topic at all. We don't know, move on is not a position of relevance on an apologetic site.

Our history as a church has moments of greatness, and then moments that, for us looking back, are not so great. It is a hard question to delve into. Answers may not be possible. But at least you could have the decency of getting out of the way of individuals who may not have reached your glorious and enlightened position on the issue.

If you really believe as you say then I would have thought I would have heard little from you during this discussion, rather you have dominated the entire thread.