Downside to reflection and foregiveness?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

We are not talking about forgiveness of sin but the withholding of the Priesthood.

[DanGB]

So, according to your 'belief,' when President Kimball and the other apostles at the time repeatedly stated that they had received a 'revelation'--the word is used no less than three times in OD2 itself--and even declared '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,' they were really just lying?

I have no doubt that President Kimball received an answer to his prayers to make a change in the practice of the Church that was initiated by men in the Church before him. So if you believe that God speaks through prayer, and I do, then it was through God that he received this instruction. If revelation is the way that new doctrine is introduced to the Church, then I do not believe OD#2 was revelatory as there is no reason and or support to conclude God ever withdrew this blessing/right from our African American brtheren to begin with. Through my own prayer after years of struggle, this is the answer I have received and I recognize others may see it differently.

[Deborah]

If revelation is the way that new doctrine is introduced to the Church, then I do not believe OD#2 was revelatory as there is no reason and or support to conclude God ever withdrew this blessing/right from our African American brtheren to begin with.

So you are saying all the prophets preceding Pres. Kimball were false prophets because they too upheld the Priesthood restriction, even though they too inquired of the Lord. We know from the historical records that Pres. McKay was particularly concerned with this and spent hours in prayer, yet the Lord upheld the restrictions. Pres. McKay in particular had reason to want the ban lifted since that was during the height of the Civil Rights movement. Yet it wasn't until years later that such a revelation was received.

I guess it's nice that someone else can perceive the mind and will of the Lord better than his prophets. I'm not one of those.

[DanGB]

One salient objection that occurs to me is that we don't know that this practice was not right, nor that it was the mistake of imperfect men.

I try to look at it and reach conclusions on what I do know as opposed to what I don't know. I do know that our founding prophet and Heavenly Father found our African American brothers worthy during the days of JS. I do know that God has not revealed any instruction subsequent to this period that would change this. I do believe if He had decided a change was needed, He would have made it known to us as he has with all other revelatory instructions in our past.

What I "don't know" is what made my African American brother somehow unworthy up until 1978.

You, of course, know it. But I don't. And it seems that several others don't, either.

I have been very specific as to what "I know" and what "I don't know". I sense this candidness and honesty makes you a bit uncomfortable by your tone. And yes, I believe, based on my conclusions and reasoning described throughout this thread, that the Church would benefit in the long run to take a page from others and acknowledge this practice was not in step with Christian doctrine since the restoration of the gospel. This is what I believe, this is my opinion, this is not a demand nor crusade. It was triggered by feelings brought back by Elder Oaks speech.

Perhaps you need to apologize for us, as well?

This comment comes off to me as either sarcastic or belitteling. If it is not, I would have no reason to have remorseful feelings towards, or appologize for, anyone who was not even part a decision that I may regret today.

[Deborah]

What I "don't know" is what made my African American brother somehow unworthy up until 1978.

Once again it had nothing to do with worthiness. Many of those who were not allowed to have the Priesthood were more worthy than those who did. Only God knows the actual reasons for the restriction. As has been said over and over, many at different times have not been permitted to hold the Priesthood and even today when all are able to receive it there are still restrictions on it.

And you are mistaken if you think Joseph Smith was not aware of this and it wasn't begun under him, even after he had already ordained a few free blacks to the Priesthood. Some accounts do indicate that he did begin it while living in Missouri. We don't have anything specifically written down and so people have continued to speculate. But the point is all the prophets since him have asked the Lord about this issue and all of them received the same revelation that it was not the time yet. So for you to presume that you know more than they is the height of hubris.

[Senator]

But the point is all the prophets since him have asked the Lord about this issue and all of them received the same revelation that it was not the time yet.

I wasn't aware of any revelations on the issue received prior to 1978. Please point me to such. Or, where you implying that because of the absence of any revelation, we are therefore to assume that the Lord is telling us the time is not yet? Kind of in a round about way.

[DanGB]

Once again it had nothing to do with worthiness.

???????

Frankly Deborah, you lost me here. If OD 2 revealed that all wothy male could now hold the priesthood and, prior to that declaration, blacks could not hold the priesthood, were blacks either worthy or unworthy prior to 1978?

[paulpatter]

. . .

In the first place "corrective action" is an uncorrect term. It was not corrective action. It was giving a right that had previously been witheld. Just as the revelation to Peter to teach the Gentiles wasn't a corrective action but giving something that had previously been witheld. You people need to learn to read contextually and look at history to understand why this is not something all that unusual as far as God is concerned.

I think you're splitting hairs here, Deborah, but that's fine; you're probably correct. Your concern with semantics, however, does nothing to change my premise: The First Presidency's letter, later canonized as Official Declaration--2, constitutes an admission that the Church's policy was wrong and therefore was being changed.

Those who challenge my premise might want to call to mind the aphorism, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[paulpatter]

I have read Official Declaration 2, and nowhere within the text of that declaration do I see the First Presidency making any admission that the prior prohibition on blacks receiving the priesthood was wrong. I see the First Presidency acknowledging that:

(1) The priesthood had been withheld from blacks.

(2) The withholding of the priesthood was understood to be a temporary condition.

(3) The Brethren were desirous that the blessings of the priesthood be extended to those from whom it had been withheld.

(4) After long prayerful supplication to the Lord in His holy temple, the Lord by revelation confirmed to President Kimball that the time had arrived for extending the priesthood to all from whom it had been previously withheld.

(5) The First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, all other general authorities accepted the revelation for the Church.

The general membership of the Church then accepted the revelation. At that time, Official Declaration 2 became scripture and part of LDS canon.

You are reading into the text an admission of wrongdoing which is nowhere found in the text itself.

The entire Declaration (I'll say it again) constitutes an admission that the prohibition was wrong and therefore was not being merely "fine tuned" but, in fact, completely reversed.

How could the Church reverse the prohibition without acknowledging--tacitly if you wish--that it was faulty and had to be changed?

[wenglund]

What would really be helpful is for those who seem dysfunctionally entrenched in the past, to apologize to themselves and find a way to move on, looking to the present and future for ways to become their very best selves and grow in joy and love.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ebeddoulos]

The entire Declaration (I'll say it again) constitutes an admission that the prohibition was wrong and therefore was not being merely "fine tuned" but, in fact, completely reversed.

How could the Church reverse the prohibition without acknowledging--tacitly if you wish--that it was faulty and had to be changed?

Pay attention now to this rather fine distiction. The church did not reverse itself. God revealed that he was adding to the list of those who could hold the priesthood.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Pay attention now to this rather fine distiction. The church did not reverse itself. God revealed that he was adding to the list of those who could hold the priesthood.

Amen. THere has been a biblical pattern for that to happen. It isn't surprising in this instance either.

It seems these pionts get over looked. Even you if people think the bible is bunk, at least we are consistant.

[DanGB]

We are not talking about forgiveness of sin but the withholding of the Priesthood.

Not sure if this gets into "apples and oranges", but if Christ had forgiven all, including African Americans, what or why would He find them not yet worthy, as compared to those of us who were allowed, to have His blessing? When and where did He give us enough spiritual knowledge to make this distiction?

[Deborah]

Frankly Deborah, you lost me here. If OD 2 revealed that all wothy male could now hold the priesthood and, prior to that declaration, blacks could not hold the priesthood, were blacks either worthy or unworthy prior to 1978?

Words have meanings. OD 2 said "extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members". I don't know why you keep reading that it is saying "all males, regardless of race are now considered worthy." There is no inference that they were unworthy before. The fact that once OD2 came out they began immediately ordaining blacks shows that there wasn't a question of worthiness, only a question of permission.

Seriously, I get tired of words being twisted to fit some pre-conceived bias on the part of the reader.

[Deborah]

The entire Declaration (I'll say it again) constitutes an admission that the prohibition was wrong and therefore was not being merely "fine tuned" but, in fact, completely reversed.

How could the Church reverse the prohibition without acknowledging--tacitly if you wish--that it was faulty and had to be changed?

How can people who purport to be able to read keep putting in things that aren't there? How could the early church leaders decide they would begin doing missionary work for the gentiles when while Christ lived it was only to the house of Israel? It's called REVELATION.

We have laws that people can not drive before age 16 in most states. The fact that when they turn 16 they suddenly can drive isn't a reversal of the law. It's simply giving permission that was previously denied.

[CV75]

There is no inference that they were unworthy before.

This is part of the pattern of false statements identified in post #17 that seems to persist some three pages later!

[wenglund]

I think it unwise to derail one's spiritual progression and avoid emotional peace on condition of receiving an apology from groups who likely consider their own chosen course of action to be what is best. To do so is irrationally dis-empowering, if not errantly manipulative. It is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face, and not all that far removed from holding your breath in hopes of getting your way.

Again, what would really be beneficial is for those who are self-destructively or counter-productively stuck in the past, to apologize to themselves and find a way to move on (as the Church and many members have), looking to the present and future for ways to become their very best selves and grow in joy and love.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not sure if this gets into "apples and oranges", but if Christ had forgiven all, including African Americans, what or why would He find them not yet worthy, as compared to those of us who were allowed, to have His blessing? When and where did He give us enough spiritual knowledge to make this distiction?

Worthiness had nothing to do with the preisthood ban. THe historical evidence seems to indacte this much.

[Jason]

I wonder, Dan, if you consider all women "unworthy" of holding the priesthood?

[paulpatter]

How can people who purport to be able to read keep putting in things that aren't there? How could the early church leaders decide they would begin doing missionary work for the gentiles when while Christ lived it was only to the house of Israel? It's called REVELATION.

I agree. I think your statement amounts to a "revelation" of the obvious.

: We have laws that people can not drive before age 16 in most states. The fact that when they turn 16 they suddenly can drive isn't a reversal of the law. It's simply giving permission that was previously denied.

Thoughtful semanticist that you are, I'm surprised you fail to distinguish between "law" and "policy." Unlike a law, a policy typically doesn't require legislative action at some governmental level (as well as an enforcement mechanism). A policy is defined as: 1) "prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs"; 2) "management or procedure based primarily on material interest"; 3) "a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions"[emphasis added]; 4) "a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures, esp. of a governmental body" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.). In a separate listing, the dictionary also defines policy as "a writing whereby a contract of insurance is made," and "a daily lottery in which participants bet that certain numbers will be drawn from a lottery wheel."

The Church reversed its policy; it didn't reverse a law.

[DanGB]

I think it unwise to derail one's spiritual progression and avoid emotional peace on condition of receiving an apology from groups who likely consider their own chosen course of action to be what is best. To do so is irrationally dis-empowering, if not errantly manipulative. It is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face, and not all that far removed from holding your breath in hopes of getting your way.

as was brought up on a different thread, we have seen the catholic church acknowledge, reflect, and seek forgiveness with respect to it's faults of it's inappropriate treatment of non beleivers during the inquisition and Jews during WWII. We saw them abandone it's unsound and unsupportable conclusions with respect to infants and limbo. It had little to-no detrimental impact on it's members or mission. I think most knew such prcatices and positions were not sustainable through Christian scripture and dctrine. I think it our practice w respect to lineage or skin color is quite similar. So I see little downside to the Church if it considered what I have suggested.

Again, what would really be beneficial is for those who are self-destructively or counter-productively stuck in the past, to apologize to themselves and find a way to move on (as the Church and many members have), looking to the present and future for ways to become their very best selves and grow in joy and love.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think it would be a great way to move forward and bring more onto the church who could share in the love and joy. I do not know for sure, but I suspect there are few academic institutions, public or private who have a lower percentage of black students here in America. I strongly suspect the same can be said about our Church membership. Maybe itwould tear done a barrier of perception that would let us take the gospel to more people.

BTW, what are you referring to when you say "apologize to themselves (..as the Church has..)" ?

[Deborah]

I'm surprised you fail to distinguish between "law" and "policy."

What has that got to do with the discussion. It doesn't matter if it were a commandment or a policy or a law. The fact is that there was a restriction for a time which has now been removed. Your distinguishing between law and policy makes no difference in the principle that something was applied that at a certain time is no longer applied and has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness but rather timing.

[DanGB]

I wonder, Dan, if you consider all women "unworthy" of holding the priesthood?

I probably agree with your conclusion on this subject. What do you think?

[Daniel Peterson]

What I "don't know" is what made my African American brother somehow unworthy up until 1978.

Neither do I. In fact, I didn't even know that your African American brother was unworthy.

That's why I come to this board: to learn new things.

I sense this candidness and honesty makes you a bit uncomfortable

Dang. You've figured me out. Yes, that's it: Candor and honesty make me very uncomfortable.

And yes, I believe, based on my conclusions and reasoning described throughout this thread, that the Church would benefit in the long run to take a page from others and acknowledge this practice was not in step with Christian doctrine since the restoration of the gospel. This is what I believe, this is my opinion, this is not a demand nor crusade.

And that's all fine. I simply see no reason for the Church to act on the basis of your conclusions and your reasoning. Many here plainly don't share your conclusions, and don't agree with your reasoning -- I certainly don't -- and I'm willing to bet that the Brethren wouldn't, either.

This comment comes off to me as either sarcastic or belitteling.

I'm pleased that you noticed the mild sarcasm, but regret the belittling that you seem to have imagined in it.

As a matter of fact -- "O wad some pow'r the giftie gie us," wrote Robbie Burns, "to see oursels as others see us!" -- it's difficult not to see your comments here as complacently superior, if not "belittling": We need to apologize for former prophets because you've concluded that they were wrong and out of step with Christian doctrine; President Kimball's claim of a revelation in 1978 was misleading, if not flatly untrue; disagreement with your opinion comes because one is uncomfortable with candor and honesty, and etc.

Really.

[Jason]

I probably agree with your conclusion on this subject. What do you think?

I think that you seem to believe that the only reason the Church would withold the priesthood from a group of people is because the Church sees the group as unworthy to hold it, as per your comment about your black friends being unworthy until OD#2.

I, on the other hand, understand that there can be reasons for God to withold the priesthood from a group that have nothing to do with their worthiness.