Lifting the Ban on Blacks

[consiglieri]

Yes, he is totally convinced that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by the Lord Himself and that all things are done in His wisdom and order.

Then your African housemate (like so many others) has more faith than I.

Cheers!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

A simple "yes, I believe the current Church policy regarding women being witheld from the priesthood is in error" or "no, I do not beleive the current Church policy regarding women being witheld from the priesthood is in error" would be preferable to my drawing my own conclusion of what you believe.

"Yes, I believe the current Church policy regarding women being withheld the priesthood is, like the former Church policy regarding blacks being withheld the priesthood, absent a basis in revelation."

How's that?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hamba Tuhan]

Then your African housemate (like so many others) has more faith than I.

I suspect it took a fair amount of faith when, as a 17-year-old Muslim enrolled in an Islamic school on a scholarship, he embraced the Restored Gospel and was baptised. Faith probably helped him explain his decision to his father, also Muslim and an important tribal chief. The same faith took him to another African nation as a missionary, where his personal witness helped bring dozens to embrace the truth. The great thing about faith, though, is that, when acted upon, it tends to turn into knowledge.

You should hear him preach!!!

[Jeff K.]

Hamba Tuhan, on 01 December 2009 - 02:54 PM, said:

Yes, he is totally convinced that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by the Lord Himself and that all things are done in His wisdom and order.

Then your African housemate (like so many others) has more faith than I.

Cheers!

--Consiglieri

If you don't even have that level of basic faith I would suggest that teaching gospel doctrine, which is based on a certain level of faith, is not what you should be doing. IN other words it isn't helping the Lord's church.

An outline to the lesson has been provided, if you cannot follow it because it doesn't make you look good, then let a more humble and thoughtful member of your ward take over. I personally would question the wisdom of someone who casually asserts speculation as fact (as you have done in the past) to step up and say "gee what I can do". You are lucky in a sense, apparently those who know church history have felt you too minor to challenge in Sunday School. The danger being, of course that you lead those who do not detect the errors you have made, would somehow believe that your lesson has the imprimatur of church leadership locally or the prophet. I think we both know after last conference that is not the case. You wouldn't get away with such a cavalier action in most other wards.

[Jeff K.]

I suspect it took a fair amount of faith when, as a 17-year-old Muslim enrolled in an Islamic school on a scholarship, he embraced the Restored Gospel and was baptised. Faith probably helped him explain his decision to his father, also Muslim and an important tribal chief. The same faith took him to another African nation as a missionary, where his personal witness helped bring dozens to embrace the truth. The great thing about faith, though, is that, when acted upon, it tends to turn into knowledge.

You should hear him preach!!!

Oh he won't. It would minimize Consig's presumed presnce on the stage.

I have seen such conversions a time or two, and it is indeed reflective of the strength of the gospel in those who aren't wrapped up in themselves.

[Jason]

"Yes, I believe the current Church policy regarding women being withheld the priesthood is, like the former Church policy regarding blacks being withheld the priesthood, absent a basis in revelation."

How's that?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That would be another dodge, since it avoids answering the question of whether you believe the Church is in error witholding the preisthood from women as you seem to believe the Church was in error in witholding the preisthood from people of african descent.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Oh he won't. It would minimize Consig's presumed presnce on the stage.

Jeff, I would prefer it if you didn't use my words to take personal shots against another poster.

[consiglieri]

You should hear him preach!!!

If he were in my ward, I would cede the entire time to him.

Consider it a standing invitation.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Oh he won't. It would minimize Consig's presumed presnce on the stage.

The funny thing is I didn't see JeffK's response until just now.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

That would be another dodge, since it avoids answering the question of whether you believe the Church is in error witholding the preisthood from women as you seem to believe the Church was in error in witholding the preisthood from people of african descent.

I have never said I believe the Church was in error for withholding the Priesthood from people of African descent.

(Though it would call into question whether Joseph Smith was in error for giving the Priesthood to such people.)

I am just saying it appears to be a practice with no revelatory basis.

And so far, I have heard few disagreeing with that premise.

Do you believe there was a revelatory basis for withholding the Priesthood from blacks?

If so, would you mind letting me know where it is recorded?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hamba Tuhan]

If he were in my ward, I would cede the entire time to him.

Consider it a standing invitation.

I'll pass the invitation along. He's hoping to visit America someday.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff, I would prefer it if you didn't use my words to take personal shots against another poster.

Then consider that I simply said the same words you said...

And it isn't a personal shot. Anymore than a bishop wondering what the heck is going on in gospel doctrine when something like this occurs. If the person were person "X" the response would be the same.

Ego driven Sunday School teachers do not help the church, the gospel or the members. Its the equivalent of a slasher movie in gospel doctrine, all about tittilation and no substance.

"All the best"

[Jeff K.]

GingerRed, on 01 December 2009 - 01:17 PM, said:

If they tried to hand me the Priesthood, I would throw it right back at 'em! I don't want it! LOL

Anyone who understands the responsibility and the accountability that goes along with holding the Priesthood, no thanks! Women don't need it. We are spiritual and special daughters of Heavenly Father enough already.

Boys are just as spiritual and special as girls.

The Priesthood just makes us better.

God always liked us best.

There is room for a discourse on priesthood and women, I think much more exists there than meets the eye. I have been reading some studies based on journals from Relief Society secretaries regarding things like laying on of hands. It may not be priesthood per se as we understand the Melechezedek Priesthood, but there is stuff out there that does indeed make one wonder for further light and knowledge on the issue.

[Jeff K.]

I have never said I believe the Church was in error for withholding the Priesthood from people of African descent.

(Though it would call into question whether Joseph Smith was in error for giving the Priesthood to such people.)

I am just saying it appears to be a practice with no revelatory basis.

And so far, I have heard few disagreeing with that premise.

Do you believe there was a revelatory basis for withholding the Priesthood from blacks?

If so, would you mind letting me know where it is recorded?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Does one presume that no prophet ever thought to question it? Or that no revelation was given upon the question being asked as to whether or not to lift the ban?

What are the qualities that must play a part in revelation, is it proactive or both proactive and passive (stupor of thought)?

[Rich Hansen]

If you don't even have that level of basic faith I would suggest that teaching gospel doctrine, which is based on a certain level of faith, is not what you should be doing. IN other words it isn't helping the Lord's church.

An outline to the lesson has been provided, if you cannot follow it because it doesn't make you look good, then let a more humble and thoughtful member of your ward take over. I personally would question the wisdom of someone who casually asserts speculation as fact (as you have done in the past) to step up and say "gee what I can do". You are lucky in a sense, apparently those who know church history have felt you too minor to challenge in Sunday School. The danger being, of course that you lead those who do not detect the errors you have made, would somehow believe that your lesson has the imprimatur of church leadership locally or the prophet. I think we both know after last conference that is not the case. You wouldn't get away with such a cavalier action in most other wards.

Jeff, be reasonable here. Consiglieri was called by the bishop of the ward. If Consig's bishop has a problem with him, Consig will be released. You have your opinion regarding Consig's suitability for his calling, but that is in conflict with the Bishop's inspiration. My guess is the bishop knows what is going on in the class and approves. The bishop must feel that Consig is helping the Lord's church in that ward. Is the bishop in error?

[sethpayne]

Jeff, be reasonable here. Consiglieri was called by the bishop of the ward. If Consig's bishop has a problem with him, Consig will be released. You have your opinion regarding Consig's suitability for his calling, but that is in conflict with the Bishop's inspiration. My guess is the bishop knows what is going on in the class and approves. The bishop must feel that Consig is helping the Lord's church in that ward. Is the bishop in error?

Amen, Brother Hansen. Amen.

[cinepro]

That's a great idea!

It has been my 30-year experience that most Mormons tend to be quite committed to the idea of "Continuing Revelation" . . . so long as it does nothing more than confirm current beliefs.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I was also surprised the manual doesn't discuss how members can distinguish between a prophet speaking as a man, or a prophet speaking as a Prophet, when it comes to future claims of revelation. It would also probably be helpful to discuss how we can tell if the apostles are acting according to mistaken traditions and assumptions regarding the scriptures and Church history, or if they're acting under inspiration.

Such a discussion might help to reduce the incidence of "Folk Mormonism" in the Church, even among the leaders, which could only be a good thing.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff, be reasonable here. Consiglieri was called by the bishop of the ward. If Consig's bishop has a problem with him, Consig will be released. You have your opinion regarding Consig's suitability for his calling, but that is in conflict with the Bishop's inspiration. My guess is the bishop knows what is going on in the class and approves. The bishop must feel that Consig is helping the Lord's church in that ward. Is the bishop in error?

Are you suggesting bishops may not be in error? I am using reasoning on this situation. Does anyone actually believe that teaching such widespread speculation in gospel doctrine class is ok? I think it is fine to bring up the issues here, we presume a certain level of understanding that must accompany the thread. But gospel doctrine, which exists primarily to fortify testimonies in regards to the doctrines of Christ just doesn't quite fit the "lets talk about how the church is racist, or how the church adopted racist policies, or how the church was so devestatingly wrong all these many many decades, and so on...."

How many testimonies will be hurt by that? What would a bishop's response be as people leave some angry, some contentious, some questioning the validity of church revelations?

Now consig is a good one for talking big, he may simply be using the forum in order to "pretend" to teach such things in gospel doctrine, and instead is very much toeing the party line during gospel doctrine, with nary a need or peep from the bishop. Unfortunately I have to presume Consig is honest in his intent and therefore creating strife within the ward confines. That does indeed worry me. Especially given consigs penchant for treating inaccurate history as given fact.

This is a good forum for such discussion, and I enjoy reading about it. But discussion in gospel doctrine is what disturbs me. Not that consig brings it up here, but in a place where great responsibility is placed in the hands of a teacher. Or maybe he doesn't think of the calling that way, or maybe he doesn't care what level of testimony exists or who gets hurt, or maybe he cannot conceive of a testimony being hurt by his words?

I don't know what he thinks. I just know that the subject matter is inappropriate for gospel doctrine class. Not this forum and others like it, but gospel doctrine class, a distinctly different place. I think I am reasonable in that assertion.

[mfbukowski]

I have not read this thread. I typically become "too exercised" about these topics, and so avoid them.

But this is an excellent site, that if you have not seen, you definitely should.

I know Marvin Perkins and he has done a fireside for our stake.

http://www.blacksinthescriptures.com/

There is a good amount of information on the site, and the DVD they sell is excellent.

[Jeff K.]

I have not read this thread. I typically become "too exercised" about these topics, and so avoid them.

But this is an excellent site, that if you have not seen, you definitely should.

I know Marvin Perkins and he has done a fireside for our stake.

http://www.blacksinthescriptures.com/

There is a good amount of information on the site, and the DVD they sell is excellent.

It looks interesting, what is the gist?

[DanGB]

Thank you for the kind words, DanGB.

I would be interested in knowing how you would handle it, if you don't mind sharing.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'd have to be honest w myself first and foremost. I would emphasize the courageous character of Pres. Kimball in his thoughtful prayer on the decision.

But I would explain that the gospel was restored through JS and he knew of no reason to deny the priesthood to blacks, nor did our doctrines require it. I would explain that it is not known. Why the ban was initiated by BY, but that men do make mistakes, even prophets in this case. If questioned about revelation, I'd be honest. There is no evidence of one initiating the ban. If questioned on OD2, I would say it merely was guided through prayer and resolved a long overdue change.

If asked for personal opinion after that, I would ask them to meet me after Church. But I would tell them it was a mistake with no foundation.

At the end of the day, I have to live with myself longer than anyone else!

Again, best of luck.

[jadams_4242]

I am going to be discussing Official Declaration 2 in Sunday school next week (or the week after), and was wondering what things I ought, and ought not, to cover.

I personally find OD 2 fascinating because it claims to overturn by revelation a practice for which no authorizing revelation can be found. (If I should be wrong on this, I would appreciate clarification, but I have yet to run across an authorization revelation for a practice so widespread and controversial as to lead one to expect such a revelation to be at the bottom of it.)

I think the Missouri Period was formative for the Mormons, and one of the things that got formed there was the Mormon post-Joseph attitude toward blacks.

I am aware of William W. Phelps publishing an article (in the Evening and Morning Star ?) in 1833 Missouri titled, "Free People of Color," which caused a hue and cry among the non-Mormon settlers (claiming the Mormons wanted to have free black Mormons come in from Northern states and "pollute" their Missouri slaves), leading rather directly to the expulsion of the Mormons from Jackson County.

Trying to put the hornets back into the next, W.W. Phelps issued an extra of the paper in which he said he did not mean to imply any such thing, and further assuring the Missouri settlers that he did not even think blacks should be allowed to be members of the Church of Christ.

All in vain, as it turned out, and the Mormons were ejected from their designated Zion by force.

How much this had to do with subsequent LDS attitudes toward blacks may not be certain, but I find it hard to believe it played no part at all.

Especially when we know that Joseph Smith not only allowed blacks to join the Church, but also ordained them to the priesthood.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If it were me i would only discuss facts. not speculation or assuming anything.

[DanGB]

If it were me i would only discuss facts. not speculation or assuming anything.

Amen.

[Jeff K.]

doubly so, Amen...

[paulpatter]

Yet, how does that fit with this?:

"From the biography of President Boyd K. Packer by Sister Lucille Tate, we get some insight into the process of revelation, specifically in relation to President Kimball's receiving the revelation of the priesthood being extended to all worthy males in the Church:

At the same time the LDS edition of the scriptures was being prepared for publication another matter was weighing heavily upon the soul of one of the Lord's great watchmen, President Spencer W. Kimball. Other latter-day prophets had wrestled with the same dilemma: that of obeying the divine command to preach the gospel to every kindred, tongue, and people, while being keenly aware that, because of race, some of those people were denied the full blessings of the gospel-that is, denied the priesthood and the temple ordinances. Thus these prophets had pleaded mightily with the Lord for answers to the problem, and none of them more intensely than President Kimball. Yet always the Spirit had indicated that the time had not yet come."

http://www.meridianm...051011dc42.html

Thank you for your response, Brenda. Regarding your last sentence (the one in boldface), it should be noted that for Apostle Hugh B. Brown, a member of the First Presidency no less, the Spirit indicated that the time had come. While other prophets prayed about the prohibition, none pursued its termination as did President Kimball. He was consumed by it, spending long hours in the temple on his knees.