Downside to reflection and foregiveness?

[DanGB]

After much study and personal reflection as a member, I admit I have a great deal of trouble with what little the Church has done in explaining it's history and doctrinal basis for denial f the priesthood to blacks. The entire "Elder Oaks" speech backlash has done nothing but confirm a frustration I wish did not exist. But it does, and it does because of my pride on my beliefs.

Frankly, I find no scriptural, revelatory, nor theological support for this part of our history. Christ's attonement was for all without regard skin color or past lineage.

So what could possibly be so wrong or bad for the Church to tak a page from others and just publically admit that this practice was not right and acknowledge that it was the mistake of imperfect men?

The backlash from Elder Oaks speech shows that it remains a huge public issue for us. The Church remains too embarrassed to ever speak to this practice publically. And all we can say as members is the weakest "we don't know" ! And we say this without ever acknowledging that blacks were allowed the priesthood originally, only to havebit subjectively retracted.

We see the capacity for understanding and forgiveness in the Christian world (because they are Christians), and we cannot nor will not officially support this policy/practice in any way. We wish it did not exist within our membership conversations so we won't talk about it!

So why not do the right thing and just come out officially as a Church and admit our mistake? What could possibly be the downside to us as a Church? We could make many strides forward, IMO, if we finally acknowledged publiclly what many of us already have acknowledgedx privately.

[Ray Agostini]

2 Nephi 26:

32 And again, the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal; that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain; that they should not envy; that they should not have malice; that they should not contend one with another; that they should not commit whoredoms; and that they should do none of these things; for whoso doeth them shall perish.

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

I won't say anymore, lest I be accused of "derailing" this thread.

Bye.

[Avatar4321]

Is there any evidence there was a mistake?

[DanGB]

Is there any evidence there was a mistake?

Oh absolutely. It was the attonement and sacrafice of Jesus Christ! He paid for all sins, right?

[handys003]

After much study and personal reflection as a member, I admit I have a great deal of trouble with what little the Church has done in explaining it's history and doctrinal basis for denial f the priesthood to blacks. The entire "Elder Oaks" speech backlash has done nothing but confirm a frustration I wish did not exist. But it does, and it does because of my pride on my beliefs.

Frankly, I find no scriptural, revelatory, nor theological support for this part of our history. Christ's attonement was for all without regard skin color or past lineage.

So what could possibly be so wrong or bad for the Church to tak a page from others and just publically admit that this practice was not right and acknowledge that it was the mistake of imperfect men?

The backlash from Elder Oaks speech shows that it remains a huge public issue for us. The Church remains too embarrassed to ever speak to this practice publically. And all we can say as members is the weakest "we don't know" ! And we say this without ever acknowledging that blacks were allowed the priesthood originally, only to havebit subjectively retracted.

We see the capacity for understanding and forgiveness in the Christian world (because they are Christians), and we cannot nor will not officially support this policy/practice in any way. We wish it did not exist within our membership conversations so we won't talk about it!

So why not do the right thing and just come out officially as a Church and admit our mistake? What could possibly be the downside to us as a Church? We could make many strides forward, IMO, if we finally acknowledged publiclly what many of us already have acknowledgedx privately.

This probably sums it up IMO from another website

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/history/black_mormons.html

Q. Will the Mormon Church ever just apologize to black people for teaching that they are the descendants of Cain and cursed by God? A. Not likely. If the Priesthood-ban was an invention of Mormon leaders, then they could apologize for it. However, the claim of Mormon prophets, from Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball, was that it was not from them, but from the LORD. And the LORD has said:

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (

Doctrine & Covenants

1:38)

People should realize that the Mormon Church has always taught that Hamites (people of the lineage of Cain through Egyptus) have been "blessed" by the LORD as well as "cursed" by Him, and that the LORD both blessed and cursed the Israelites as well! Black Africans (and other Hamites) are not the only lineage to have been cursed; nor the only one to have been blessed either. In 1998, a small group of Mormons (most of them white) asked if the Church would repudiate the Curse of Cain doctrine and say that the Priesthood-ban was in fact an 'unfortunate mistake'. The Church did not do this, but rather told reporters and others that they would let the 1978 Revelation "speak for itself". Some Mormons consider the 1978 Revelation to be an 'apology'. Others don't see it that way at all. The Church apparently leaves it up to each individual to interpret it for themselves. You can read the 1978 Revelation below. (Anyone who prints out this article to give to others should make sure to include the 1978 Revelation in their printout of this article, and staple it to this article). You may read The 1978 Revelation yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

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

[handys003]

Here's an article also of interest of some African- Americans not wanting an apology from the church

http://www.lds-mormo.../lds_race.shtml

Black Mormons Resist Apology Talk

By Bill Broadway

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, May 30, 1998; Page B09

A panel of five African Americans surprised members of the Mormon History Association in Washington last weekend by arguing against an effort to force an apology from Mormon leaders for the church's former racist doctrines -- an effort, the panel said, that would be a "detriment" to church work and a catalyst to further racial misunderstanding.

"There is no pleasure in old news, and this news is old," Bryan E. Powell, a mortgage broker from Suitland, said in response to a paper urging the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to rid itself of "an unresolved legacy of the nineteenth century."

The legacy, recounted in a 45-minute presentation at the association's annual meeting, was a onetime belief that blacks were spiritually inferior to whites and should be excluded from priesthood, a position achieved by most Mormon men. Mormonism has no paid clergy and relies on a laity with broad-based powers to lead worship and perform such sacraments as baptisms, ordinations and infant blessings.

"What the brother read here is a detriment to my race and to my church," said Theodore Newkirk Jr., a "high priest" of the church and first president of the recently organized Capitol Hill Branch. "We must put an end to this information fast."

Like other denominations, Mormonism -- organized in 1830 -- once taught that blacks were descendants of Cain, Adam and Eve's son who was banished after murdering his brother Abel, and of Ham, Noah's son who broke a taboo when he looked at the nude body of his drunken father. In what became known as the "curse of Ham," Noah condemned to slavery the descendants of Ham's son Canaan.

Mormon theology added the belief that blacks embodied spirits that had fought on God's side in a celestial battle of Good vs. Evil but had performed "less valiantly."

Powell said that the church, which has about 48,000 Washington area members, rejected its earlier teachings on race two decades ago, when leaders proclaimed that "all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."

But as the June 6 anniversary of that proclamation approaches, some white and black Mormons have pressed for an outright admission that past teachings on race were erroneous.

Tensions increased last week after an unnamed source leaked documents to the Los Angeles Times, which reported that "key leaders" at the church's Salt Lake City headquarters were debating a proposal on whether to publicly disavow the church's earlier teachings on race. The office of President Gordon Hinckley, whom Mormons consider a prophet, released a statement denying that he and his counselors are considering such a proposal.

"Since the 1978 revelation granting the priesthood to all worthy males, millions of people of all races have embraced the restored gospel of Jesus Christ," the statement said. "[That] declaration continues to speak for itself."

But Armand L. Mauss, a sociologist from Pullman, Wash., who is president of the Mormon History Association, said in an interview that he has talked with dozens of black Mormons who believe that some Mormon leaders and laity still view blacks as inferior.

Mauss said that some of the teachings did not originate with Mormons but with the Protestant groups from which Mormons converted. "Every major Protestant denomination in history has taught that blacks are descendants of Cain and Ham," he said.

Yet teachings that "died a natural death" over time among Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and others, he said, have lingered in Mormonism as indicated by books published as recently as 10 years ago.

"The only way to neutralize what's out there is a public repudiation" of earlier doctrines, said Mauss, who is white.

Lawrence Mamiya, professor of religion and Africana studies at Vassar College, agreed in a telephone interview with most of Mauss's assessment. "All white denominations" at some time have used the curse of Ham to justify slavery or racist attitudes, Mamiya said. "It's not so much that it was officially preached but that it existed in the culture."

This "mythology has never really disappeared," Mamiya said. It resurfaced during the unrest of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and "is still alive today, particularly among many fundamentalist groups."

Mormon arguments over race come at a time when church membership is blossoming in Africa and other developing areas that have predominantly nonwhite populations. Spokesman Don LeFevre said the 10 million-member church does not identify members by race and has no idea of the racial breakdown of its constituency.

In February, Hinckley completed a six-day tour of Africa, where the church has 112,000 members in 32 countries -- most of whom have joined since 1978, LeFevre said. More recently, Hinckley addressed a regional conference of the NAACP -- a first for a Mormon leader.

But last weekend's panelists, meeting at the Washington Marriott, said some issues are better left alone, including trying to squeeze an apology from the church hierarchy. "I would like to erase the past 200 years of racism in this country, but no, I can't do it," Powell said, adding that he had a personal revelation of the church's validity when he converted in 1993. "Regardless of past policy, this is a true church."

Gladys Newkirk, Theodore's wife and a pharmaceutical representative from Suitland, said she has seen numerous cases of the church helping unemployed African Americans find and keep jobs since she joined 10 years ago.

As an African American, "I've never experienced any problems in this church," she said. "I don't need an apology. . . . We're the result of an apology."

Cleeretta Smiley, a doctor of holistic medicine in Kensington and a Mormon since 1975, three years before the church's race declaration, was the only panelist to directly address the church's old teachings on race, calling them "damnable heresies." But she said that any generation of believers is capable of "misinterpretations" of scripture and revelation and agreed that it's time to put the matter to rest.

"We are all speaking from our hearts," she said.

Gregory Prince, a medical researcher in Rockville who helped plan the four-day conference, said he gave the panel no guidelines other than to speak about their experiences in the church. He looked perplexed when asked after the session about the panel's position on the question of retracting old doctrines. "I was surprised at how strongly they articulated their feelings," said Prince, who read a paper by Lester Bush, a longtime advocate of racial equality in the church who was unable to attend. Theirs, he said, is "one voice we need to listen to."

[Zakuska]

After much study and personal reflection as a member, I admit I have a great deal of trouble with what little the Church has done in explaining it's history and doctrinal basis for denial f the priesthood to blacks. The entire "Elder Oaks" speech backlash has done nothing but confirm a frustration I wish did not exist. But it does, and it does because of my pride on my beliefs.

Frankly, I find no scriptural, revelatory, nor theological support for this part of our history. Christ's attonement was for all without regard skin color or past lineage.

So what could possibly be so wrong or bad for the Church to tak a page from others and just publically admit that this practice was not right and acknowledge that it was the mistake of imperfect men?

The backlash from Elder Oaks speech shows that it remains a huge public issue for us. The Church remains too embarrassed to ever speak to this practice publically. And all we can say as members is the weakest "we don't know" ! And we say this without ever acknowledging that blacks were allowed the priesthood originally, only to havebit subjectively retracted.

We see the capacity for understanding and forgiveness in the Christian world (because they are Christians), and we cannot nor will not officially support this policy/practice in any way. We wish it did not exist within our membership conversations so we won't talk about it!

So why not do the right thing and just come out officially as a Church and admit our mistake? What could possibly be the downside to us as a Church? We could make many strides forward, IMO, if we finally acknowledged publiclly what many of us already have acknowledgedx privately.

Didn't Christ call the canaanite woman a Dirty dog not worthy of the crumbs that fell from his table?

[justdreamin]

Here's a little something from an interview by PBS of Jeffrey Holland from 2006. The interviewer is in bold. The full interview is here: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

Besides what BR McConkie said about himself, and all others who speculated on the ban as being wrong and unenlightened, this is probably about as close as the Church will get to an apology. They just don't really do that.

I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

What is the folklore, quite specifically?Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...

[jwhitlock]

Is there any evidence there was a mistake?

Not really.

But to those who would steady the ark, I'm sure they can spin such things in a way to rationalize their "distress".

The OP is a prime example of misrepresenting the whole situation in order to justify accomodation with the world. Take a look at some of the phrases used:

" Christ's attonement was for all without regard skin color or past lineage." - I'm not aware that the Church ever taught that Christ's salvation didn't apply to blacks.

"So what could possibly be so wrong or bad for the Church to tak a page from others" - The world can guide us in what we should do in this distressing situation.

" just publically admit that this practice was not right and acknowledge that it was the mistake of imperfect men?" - The only explanation is that it was a mistake; it can't be understood any other way. There's no way that the Lord was involved with this at all.

"The backlash from Elder Oaks speech shows that it remains a huge public issue for us." - I'm sure Christ was concerned with public perception after he fed the 5000, tried to teach them what He really was, and lots of them didn't follow Him after that. That was obviously a huge mistake.

"The Church remains too embarrassed to ever speak to this practice publically" - Except, of course, that the Church has and does speak about it. They just don't acknowledge it as a mistake and apologize it - which, in the best sense of circular reasoning, must mean that they are too embarrassed to speak about it publicly.

" And all we can say as members is the weakest "we don't know" ! " - I wasn't aware that we had reached a level of Omniscience where "I don't know" has to be dismissed as a weak reason.

"And we say this without ever acknowledging that blacks were allowed the priesthood originally, only to havebit subjectively retracted." - Phrasing the revelation of 1978 as just a "subjective retraction" is a sign of what? Hint: the word begins with 'A' and ends with 'Y'. Odd, too; I thought I'd heard quite a bit about Elijah Abel. I must have been mistaken.

"We see the capacity for understanding and forgiveness in the Christian world (because they are Christians" - Yeah, like the SBC, and Oral Roberts U, to give a couple of examples.

"We wish it did not exist within our membership conversations so we won't talk about it!" - Do ark-steadiers always project their own feelings onto the membership as a whole?

"So why not do the right thing and just come out officially as a Church and admit our mistake?" - And of course, it's only the "right thing" to do. Despite the fact that it's been explained why doing this would be such a big problem on other threads. His mind's made up, it was a mistake, and we have to apologize for it in order to accomodate the world.

"We could make many strides forward..." - If we only do what the world wants us to do.

With all that's been said, I think that perhaps the CofC is the church for ark-steadiers. They have, after all, done precisely what has been suggested in the OP. They've done away with that bothersome polygamy mistake, they've distanced themselves from prophetic arrogance, they've tried hard to follow the lead of protestant churches in how they do things. And look at what great strides forward they're making, and how effective they are!

[Avatar4321]

" just publically admit that this practice was not right and acknowledge that it was the mistake of imperfect men?" - The only explanation is that it was a mistake; it can't be understood any other way. There's no way that the Lord was involved with this at all.

And that's the entire problem with the OPs proposition. There is plenty of reason to belief it's not the only explanation. And all anyone has to do is browse the scriptures and see that the Priesthood, and even the Gospel, has been limited to different groups at different periods of time.

It's because they dont understand that the Atonement works for both the living and the dead. They dont understand that the dead can be redeemed. That God's timing is not our timing.

The time will come when the Gospel will be taken from the Gentiles and we will no longer preach to them. Is the Church or God racist when that time comes?

Why should we apologize for preaching the Gospel of Peace according to the Lord's timetable? I see nothing to be apologizing for. The Gospel is true no matter whether people are offended or not. Better to do the Lord's will and let the Lord deal with the rest.

[Redefined]

And that's the entire problem with the OPs proposition. There is plenty of reason to belief it's not the only explanation. And all anyone has to do is browse the scriptures and see that the Priesthood, and even the Gospel, has been limited to different groups at different periods of time.

It's because they dont understand that the Atonement works for both the living and the dead. They dont understand that the dead can be redeemed. That God's timing is not our timing.

The time will come when the Gospel will be taken from the Gentiles and we will no longer preach to them. Is the Church or God racist when that time comes?

Why should we apologize for preaching the Gospel of Peace according to the Lord's timetable? I see nothing to be apologizing for. The Gospel is true no matter whether people are offended or not. Better to do the Lord's will and let the Lord deal with the rest.

The thing is, when the time comes that the Gospel is taken away from the Gentiles, the "Gentiles" are a race of different skin colors. . . . even white!

Added. . . so it wouldn't fit the definition of racism. . . just elitism.

[Vindicator]

And that's the entire problem with the OPs proposition. There is plenty of reason to belief it's not the only explanation. And all anyone has to do is browse the scriptures and see that the Priesthood, and even the Gospel, has been limited to different groups at different periods of time.

It's because they dont understand that the Atonement works for both the living and the dead. They dont understand that the dead can be redeemed. That God's timing is not our timing.

The time will come when the Gospel will be taken from the Gentiles and we will no longer preach to them. Is the Church or God racist when that time comes?

Why should we apologize for preaching the Gospel of Peace according to the Lord's timetable? I see nothing to be apologizing for. The Gospel is true no matter whether people are offended or not. Better to do the Lord's will and let the Lord deal with the rest.

My father, a convert once spoke to me about this, as he was somewhat in my opinion a bigot, and told me that the LDS church was, in outward appearances an "elitists" church, and was merely keeping with the social ideals of the time, example the Black's once had separate bathrooms, couldn't go into certain restaurants etc, but because a member ordained a Black man in the north West and was ex-communicated for it caused a national uproar. Since the LDS church could not come up with a rational explanation for why the Blacks could not hold the Priesthood, a few months later Our Prophet suddenly had a "Revelation" allowing the Blacks to hold the Priesthood but my father agreed with many members worldwide that the revelation was merely "Window Dressing" for how the church and it's members really felt.

[jwhitlock]

My father, a convert once spoke to me about this, as he was somewhat in my opinion a bigot, and told me that the LDS church was, in outward appearances an "elitists" church, and was merely keeping with the social ideals of the time, example the Black's once had separate bathrooms, couldn't go into certain restaurants etc, but because a member ordained a Black man in the north West and was ex-communicated for it caused a national uproar. Since the LDS church could not come up with a rational explanation for why the Blacks could not hold the Priesthood, a few months later Our Prophet suddenly had a "Revelation" allowing the Blacks to hold the Priesthood but my father agreed with many members worldwide that the revelation was merely "Window Dressing" for how the church and it's members really felt.

Sorry to hear that your father missed the boat so completely.

[DanGB]

Didn't Christ call the canaanite woman a Dirty dog not worthy of the crumbs that fell from his table?

Wow! I could never see myself using this as an explanation or analogy with all of my African American friends/teammates from college! I trust this is not your honest reasoning on the ban!

[DanGB]

For the record and lest I date myself!

I suspect menu here may not be old enough to remember 1978 in much social awareness. This issue hits home with me and hits hard. I was playing college sports in the deep southwest. Our football team was over 50% African American. The NAACP and NCAA had brought this issue of racism front and center in the public media. I had black teammates and dear friends who, in all honesty probably knew little to nothing about the issue and ban. They all knew I was Mormon cuz I didn't drink and I never hid my faith and most were cool about it. But for the year or two leading up to Kimball's announcement I felt their perception definately changing.

I can't imagine many of you who live within Utah or the Wasatch area ever experiencing this issue in a first hand and direct manner that I did. When ask about this treatment by the Church from my African American friends and teammates I had no reasonable answers to provide then, and even less now!

This is not about finding fault in people, it is, for me, an important matter of reconciliation, reflection, and forgiveness. The Elder Oaks speech and backlash just brought back to me the difficult memories of first hand experiences from the 70s. I am more studied today and as a faithful member easily conclude "we were wrong".

[Tchild2]

So why not do the right thing and just come out officially as a Church and admit our mistake? What could possibly be the downside to us as a Church? We could make many strides forward, IMO, if we finally acknowledged publiclly what many of us already have acknowledgedx privately.

Because the ban of the priesthood for blacks was interwoven doctrinally into the church. The ban itself may not have been doctrinal, but its consequences affected the ability of persons to hold the priesthood and to effectuate covenants in the temple.

What would members think if doctrines themselves of the church were suspect as not divinely inspired and that the fallability for its leaders and prophet and "opinions of men" could reach all the way into the core doctrines and beliefs of the church?

I think you can imagine.

As a sidenote, I was on a schoolbus in Layton, UT heading to EG King elementary when the bus driver got on the speaker system and announced that Spencer W. Kimball had ended the priesthood ban on blacks. Still a very vivid memory for me.

[CV75]

After much study and personal reflection as a member, I admit I have a great deal of trouble with what little the Church has done in explaining it's history and doctrinal basis for denial f the priesthood to blacks.

Frankly, I find no scriptural, revelatory, nor theological support for this part of our history. It has been explained to me that it is the same principle as the Jews, Gentiles, and other nations having their "time" for the gospel according to a certain order that best suits the Lord's purposes, and which is designed for all His children to be exalted if they desire it.

Christ's atonement was for all without regard skin color or past lineage. This is the thing to remember. How the administration of the history of the Gospel on the earth by Him who oversees it all is not so relevant.

So what could possibly be so wrong or bad for the Church to take a page from others and just publicly admit that this practice was not right and acknowledge that it was the mistake of imperfect men? It is wrong to admit something that is not so and that disregards the atonement and the principle of taking the Gospel to the nations in their own time.

The backlash from Elder Oaks speech shows that it remains a huge public issue for us. I suggest this is a tempest in a postum pot.

The Church remains too embarrassed to ever speak to this practice publicly. I disagree. There was a talk in the last General Conference about it. The Church lives in the present and focuses on the management of the keys that govern, teach, minister and execute that which is essential: doctrine, covenants, and ordinances.

And all we can say as members is the weakest "we don't know" ! Not true. I know, and I explain as needed. The light and the fruits of the Gospel in my life quickly outshine any misunderstood "history."

And we say this without ever acknowledging that blacks were allowed the priesthood originally, only to havebit subjectively retracted.

The statements are getting falser and falser with each line.

We see the capacity for understanding and forgiveness in the Christian world (because they are Christians), and we cannot nor will not officially support this policy/practice in any way. We wish it did not exist within our membership conversations so we won't talk about it! The statements are getting falser and falser with each line.

So why not do the right thing and just come out officially as a Church and admit our mistake? It is wrong to admit something that is not so and that disregards the atonement and the principle of taking the Gospel to the nations in their own time.

What could possibly be the downside to us as a Church? It is wrong to admit something that is not so and that disregards the atonement and the principle of taking the Gospel to the nations in their own time.

We could make many strides forward, IMO, if we finally acknowledged publicly what many of us already have acknowledged privately. What "many" may have acknowledged privately in fear, misunderstanding, ignorance, weakness, embarrassment, isolation, parochialism, pride, etc. is not the same as what a Church must acknowledge publicly. It is wrong to admit something that is not so and that disregards the atonement and the principle of taking the Gospel to the nations in their own time.

[CV75]

As a sidenote, I was on a schoolbus in Layton, UT heading to EG King elementary when the bus driver got on the speaker system and announced that Spencer W. Kimball had ended the priesthood ban on blacks. Still a very vivid memory for me.

I remember the moment I found out, too. I was a recent convert, college graduate waiting for my mission call. I was very happy about it not because of the ramifications for racial, socioeconomic and political justice in the USA, but because the Gospel was about to expand throughout the earth among the next wave of nations to receive it. It was a "sign of the times" to me.

[Deborah]

I can't imagine many of you who live within Utah or the Wasatch area ever experiencing this issue in a first hand and direct manner that I did.

I was a student at BYU in the 60's when the Civil Rights movement was at its peak. I assure you members in Utah experienced this first hand with our BYU basketball team.

Later in the 70's I lived in the South and we had a black family in our ward. They were strong and faithful members in spite of the Priesthood ban.

I think all those who have an issue with this ought to talk to the faithful black members who joined the church in spite of the ban and especially should talk to those faithful people in Africa who were already converted but had to wait for the ban to be lifted before the church could send missionaries and begin baptizing and ordaining black men to the Priesthood.

I also suggest looking at Darius Grey's films and books.

For whatever reason the ban was placed, just as throughout history the Lord has limited his Priesthood in different ways. It was not a mistake to be apologized for and though we may not understand it, it was something that could be removed only through revelation. And contrary to some of the critics, it wasn't a result of pressure, as the greatest pressure was in the 60's. It was a result of the prayers of the prophet of the church, and other members, because of the faithfulness of those many blacks who were already members of the church or waiting to be baptized.

[DanGB]

Christ's atonement was for all without regard skin color or past lineage. This is the thing to remember. How the administration of the history of the Gospel on the earth by Him who oversees it all is not so relevant.

It's not so relevant because, since the gospel was restored, He never asked us to treat brethern of a different skin color differently! The Church never received His instruction to do so. We can try all the rationalizations we want. But can anyone point to our doctrine or revelations where our Heavenly Father singled out blacks or African Americans for denial of the priesthood blessing?

We constantly ask our critics to hold us to our doctrine. Why can't we ask ourselves to do the same!!!

I admit my beliefs on this issue may be different than many here but I have never substituted individual thought and reasoning to the comfort of group think/acceptance on this issue.

I have no animosity w those who disagree. I probably would just challenge them on evidence, facts and support that the Church would stand behind in an official capacity as well.

[juliann]

My father, a convert once spoke to me about this, as he was somewhat in my opinion a bigot, and told me that the LDS church was, in outward appearances an "elitists" church, and was merely keeping with the social ideals of the time, example the Black's once had separate bathrooms, couldn't go into certain restaurants etc, but because a member ordained a Black man in the north West and was ex-communicated for it caused a national uproar. Since the LDS church could not come up with a rational explanation for why the Blacks could not hold the Priesthood, a few months later Our Prophet suddenly had a "Revelation" allowing the Blacks to hold the Priesthood but my father agreed with many members worldwide that the revelation was merely "Window Dressing" for how the church and it's members really felt.

Baloney. Call for references.

Whatever our failings and no one is denying them, there were never designated separate facilities for blacks in Utah which is a bit odd if we were merely trying to "keep up with the times".

[Glenn101]

It's not so relevant because, since the gospel was restored, He never asked us to treat brethern of a different skin color differently! The Church never received His instruction to do so. We can try all the rationalizations we want. But can anyone point to our doctrine or revelations where our Heavenly Father singled out blacks or African Americans for denial of the priesthood blessing?

We constantly ask our critics to hold us to our doctrine. Why can't we ask ourselves to do the same!!!

I admit my beliefs on this issue may be different than many here but I have never substituted individual thought and reasoning to the comfort of group think/acceptance on this issue.

I have no animosity w those who disagree. I probably would just challenge them on evidence, facts and support that the Church would stand behind in an official capacity as well.

I think that should you have questions you should address them to one who can answer authoritively. I doubt that President Monson reads this board, so it is not the proper forum.

On a personal note, and being from the south myself, I was ashamed of the treatment that the Negros were subjected to, i.e. separate schools, separate lines at the lunch counters, separate dining areas, etc. I admit I bought into the explanations I was presented with, and actually relieved when I learned that they were all attempts (unauthoritive) to explain this anomaly.

However, I believed (and still do] firmly that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is truly the restored church of Christ and that He (CHrist) stands at the head of it. I believe that the apostles and prophets are called of God and have been from Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson.

There have been reports that different prphets before President Kimball had enquired about removing the ban. I do not really know. All that I know is that it was removed by revelation in 1978 and I wholeheartedly endorsed and supported that revelation. That is all the information any of us have.

Glenn

[juliann]

We constantly ask our critics to hold us to our doctrine. Why can't we ask ourselves to do the same!!!

I admit my beliefs on this issue may be different than many here but I have never substituted individual thought and reasoning to the comfort of group think/acceptance on this issue.

LOL Can you raise that pedestal you place yourself on any higher?

You are obviously an expert on this topic. Please share statements from the Brethren in the last decade on the topic.

[DanGB]

LOL Can you raise that pedestal you place yourself on any higher?

You are obviously an expert on this topic. Please share statements from the Brethren in the last decade on the topic.

With due respect, can you provide any statements from our prophets that negate one thing I have said? LOL not!

[Deborah]

With due respect, can you provide any statements from our prophets that negate one thing I have said? LOL not!

I suggest you read Official Declaration 2, particularly these passages:

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