254 replies to this topic

[Teancum]

Personally I think the ban was an error. Nobody can find any evidence as to why it started, whether there was a revelation, etc.  It seems to me likely that it has its basis in the view of Brigham Young which we would view as racist today.  Though I am willing to cut him some slack as much of his view was a result of being a product of his time.  Still it seems it was a mistake that was perpetuated by the leadership.  The dropping of the ban was resisted by many strong apostles and I think in the 50s, when Pres. McKay may have dropped the ban it did not happent due to some strong apostles who seemed to hold racist view. I am happy it is long past.

[why me]

Teancum, on 05 March 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

Personally I think the ban was an error. Nobody can find any evidence as to why it started, whether there was a revelation, etc.  It seems to me likely that it has its basis in the view of Brigham Young which we would view as racist today.

It would be interesting to see just what Brigham thought of JS and his idea that blacks could hold the priesthood. I haven't seen any racism out of his mouth when JS was alive and well. Nor do I see him in disagreement with JS about the policy. And if true, the question would be why?

I think that an event triggered BY's decision and the question would be: Did this event constitute a change in policy and if so, did heavenly father have a hand in the change? And what would have happened if the change did not occur?

Edited by why me, 05 March 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[cinepro]

Teancum, on 05 March 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

The dropping of the ban was resisted by many strong apostles and I think in the 50s, when Pres. McKay may have dropped the ban it did not happent due to some strong apostles who seemed to hold racist view. I am happy it is long past.

It may or may not be relevant to note that when the final discussions were being made among the apostles in 1978 about ending the priesthood ban, two apostles were absent.  Elder Mark E. Peterson was in Brazil, and Elder Delbert Stapley was in the hospital.  Whether or not this is important, we'll never know, but both men had expressed views in their lifetimes that may have added a different perspective to the discussions.

They were, however, informed about the decision after the fact and sustained it.

Edited by cinepro, 05 March 2012 - 11:05 PM.

[Jeff K.]

So did Mconkie, who was there.  It seems you supposition is irrelevant.  Kind of a man on the grassy knoll theory.  Consider for a moment where Peterson was.

Edited by Jeff K., 06 March 2012 - 12:39 AM.

[cinepro]

Jeff K., on 06 March 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

So did Mconkie, who was there.  It seems you supposition is irrelevant.  Kind of a man on the grassy knoll theory.  Consider for a moment where Peterson was.

I am open to the possibility that it may not have been relevant and that if Elders Petersen and Stapley had been involved in the discussions things might have turned out exactly the same.  I just think it's an interesting factor that is often neglected.

Edited by cinepro, 06 March 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[K-2]

I don't think it was a mistake. I voted for "other."

[KevinG]

Asking questions like "was it a mistake" is oversimplifying a complex series of historical events.

I think the church as an institution and the people in it matured over time.  They did the best they knew with the information they had at the time and as they were ready to receive it they were given more light and knowledge.

We don't spend a lot of time hashing over Lincoln's advocacy of a separate nation for blacks or debate if the civil war was a good idea.  We don't claim Joseph Smith a poor prophet for not revealing the secrets of the internal combustion engine.  Why should we beat ourselves up over saying "we don't know precisely why but now we know what God commands us today."

P.S. before the inevitable snap response...  If you don't think the invention of the internal combustion engine was as important as other great social leaps you must drive a Chevy Volt.

Edited by KevinG, 07 March 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[Freedom]

Teancum, on 05 March 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

Personally I think the ban was an error. Nobody can find any evidence as to why it started, whether there was a revelation, etc.  

The problem with this argument is that the same can be said of women not holding the priesthood. Prophets, we are told, receive revelation daily but none of it is published so there is no requirement for us to have a copy of the direction given concerning this practice. This is why I can only say we don't know.

[Saints Alive]

I'm going to say the unpopular thing...

All we know is that the origins of the ban are not known. Until the First Presidency says that the ban was wrong and racist (not just the speculation surrounding it, that is all they have clarified thus far) I will continue to do the only thing a faithful Latter-Day Saint can do and assume that the ban was in fact from God or Atleast condoned by Him. Drop the issue and await further revelation, if needed.

[David T]

Quote

I will continue to do the only thing a faithful Latter-Day Saint can do and assume that the ban was in fact from God

So those of us who don't believe the Ban was from God are not faithful Latter-day Saints in your eyes? Is that really the judgment call you're making?

[Saints Alive]

nackhadlow, on 16 March 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

[/font][/color]

So those of us who don't believe the Ban was from God are not faithful Latter-day Saints in your eyes? Is that really the judgment call you're making?

nope, I can only judge for myself and I dont feel comfortable condemning something that was at the very least condoned if not ordained by God.

[JDave]

So do you retract your statement then?

Saints Alive, on 16 March 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

the only thing a faithful Latter-Day Saint can do [is] assume that the ban was in fact from God or At least condoned by Him.

[Saints Alive]

Nope

Do not judge other posters' faithfulness.   You are leaving the thread.

[David T]

To clarify, because your opinion is that since 'the only thing a faithful Latter-Day Saint can do [is] assume that the ban was in fact from God or At least condoned by Him.', in your opinion, it is also not possible for those who instead believe that God did not instruct his leaders to discriminate against African Blacks, but rather just permitted it or allowed it to occur without condoning or liking it to be Faithful Latter-day Saints.

Is this not an accurate expression of your views? If not, please make very clear what is not accurate. Because to affirm the first and to deny the second appears to be a contradiction.

Edited by nackhadlow, 16 March 2012 - 11:34 AM.

[DH]

Yes, it was a mistake.

[DarkScythe]

the ban itself, is not racist or wrong but there were a lot of people that were racist and wrong.

[cinepro]

DarkScythe, on 16 March 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

the ban itself, is not racist or wrong but there were a lot of people that were racist and wrong.

I know we've gone round and round with this, but I still can't read this and see how it makes any kind of sense.  I know it is probably comforting to some people to be able to say or read that and it makes sense in their brains, but the way I understand the Priesthood Ban and the English language, it just doesn't make any sense to say the ban wasn't "racist".  

I can understand saying it wasn't wrong, but to say that it was based on something other than "race" just doesn't make sense, even if you parse "race" in to "lineage".  

Edited by cinepro, 16 March 2012 - 04:21 PM.

[Mehrdad]

Lets not forget Matt 20:16 "The first shall be last and the last shall be first...."  I believe that the Lord loves us all equally, the Priesthood ban was lifted at the appropriate time, to hail in the prophecy in Matthew.

[calmoriah]

This might interest some people:

http://bycommonconse...acist-ifpart-3/

[Libs]

That was good, Calmoriah.  Thanks for sharing.