Lifting the Ban on Blacks

[Jeff K.]

Do you have some documentation regarding your point of view on Hugh B. Brown,

It would be interesting to read and understand.

[Hamba Tuhan]

My housemate just got home from work. In order to make sure I hadn't misrepresented him, I asked him to clarify how he explains previous priesthood restrictions. His exact answer: 'The Lord does things in His own way and in His own time.' I then asked him what he would say to someone who wanted to know if he was bothered by the past restriction. He said that was like people being bothered because Christ was born in Palestine instead of in America or Africa or wherever they live, or people being bothered because the Lord chose to restore the gospel in America instead of somewhere else. I then asked him how he thought he would have felt if he'd met the missionaries before 1978. He said he still would have joined the Church because it's true, and the important thing was that priesthood authority had been restored; he simply would have waited like so many other people wait to enjoy various blessings.

For what it's worth.

[mfbukowski]

It looks interesting, what is the gist?

Well there are a couple of aspects to it. They look at all the scriptures which supposedly justify the whole seed of Cain thing, and discussions of "dark and loathsome" etc, and show their interpretations which are I think pretty justifiable once you see their points.

Then they also look at the history of the issue, showing how Joseph ordained blacks, and how there was never a definite pronouncement. The quote and show an article from the SL Tribune quoting President McKay to the effect that there was never any revelation beginning the practice.

I am convinced that there was never a revelation to start the practice-- but I am not totally sure why and how it began. And I am pretty convinced there was no real justification for it other than perhaps the real threat of what might have happened to the church if its opponents had something else to persecute the church for. If it was inspired at all, I think the only possible justification was that the enemies of the church would have been able to come close to destroying it if there were blacks in the leadership.

In the face of persecution, perhaps the expedient choice was necessary. But those are hard words to say.

[maxrep12]

All this talk of tender testimonies getting fractured by the facts. When anything is trotted out center stage, as truth to the world, the spotlight should be directed to it. This should not come as a surprise to investigators, members, or apologists.

I have a new slogan for the church; "Milk, it's whats for dinner"

p.s How do I put my signature line in red font as several forum members have done? Is it against the rules?

[Jeff K.]

All this talk of tender testimonies getting fractured by the facts. When anything is trotted out center stage, as truth to the world, the spotlight should be directed to it. This should not come as a surprise to investigators, members, or apologists.

I have a new slogan for the church; "Milk, it's whats for dinner"

p.s How do I put my signature line in red font as several forum members have done? Is it against the rules?

Contextually false charge.

Lets look at some distinct issues.

1-Do we presume that no one in gospel doctrine struggles with their testimony?

2-Do we presume that no one in gospel doctrine is still learning at a relatively young stage in terms of gospel knowledge?

3-When you state "facts" are trotted out. According to whom? At other times certain posters have placed "facts" before us when upon examination those facts were indeed opinion. So when you say "facts" do you mean people who state opinion or erroneous history as fact?

4-Too often especially for those who disdain the church "truth to the world" is really "opinions that might hurt those learning about the church".

One can always judge how closely as to the effectiveness of an approach here. If it may somehow hurt those who are members of the church, you will see many of questionable depth of belief (to put it mildly in some cases) or outright hostility toward the church cheering it on. Usually the cacophony of support comes from a huge building designated as waterfront property, but no trees.

I have a signature for you "Make it up, sound good and then let someone else fix where you have erred"".

[paulpatter]

Do you have some documentation regarding your point of view on Hugh B. Brown,

It would be interesting to read and understand.

One of the best, most credible sources is the book An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, edited by his grandson, Edwin Firmage. I gave specific page references in a post on another thread,* but you can readily find the relevant text by looking in the book's index under "Priesthood and Blacks" or wording to that effect.

For a quick confirmation of my statement, look in Wikipedia, "Hugh B. Brown." Note this paragraph: "Hugh B. Brown favored rescinding the Negro doctrine and expected this change to take place in 1969, but this was reportedly blocked by Harold B. Lee."

*May also be in this thread; I don't have time to look for it.

[Jason]

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

I didn't ask whether you had said it, I asked whether you believed it.

This is yet another dodge.

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

I happen to think there was, yes.

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

Apparently it wasn't recorded as such.

Again, I believe the situation with women and the priesthood is similar. I believe there is a revelatory basis for denying the priesthood to women even though there is apparently no written revelation explicitely saying such.

[consiglieri]

Apparently it wasn't recorded as such.

Again, I believe the situation with women and the priesthood is similar.

I am at a loss as to how to respond to not one, but two, unwritten revelations that prevent more than half the Church's members from holding the Priesthood.

You, like so many others, have more faith than I.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Lamanite]

Hi Sig,

Just adding my two cents.

1. The practice being discussed was a social construct of the 19th century that was perpetuated by a misreading of scripture, IMO.

2. The argument that the "not yet" from the Lord was an indirect endorsement of the ban is tenuous. The "not yet" was not an endorsement of the ban but a reflection of the spiritual immaturity of the Saints.

I gave a superficial treatment of this subject when discussing a Gospel principles lesson on revelation. The account by Ed Kimball was sufficient for discussion. I had on hand historical documents, not as a foundation for the lesson, but to dispel myths and provide context when needed.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Brenda]

2. The argument that the "not yet" from the Lord was an indirect endorsement of the ban is tenuous. The "not yet" was not an endorsement of the ban but a reflection of the spiritual immaturity of the Saints.

It is an endorsement that the Lord is in control of this Church.

[Jeff K.]

Again I bring up a post that was overlooked.

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)?

I would note also that consig and others tend to take the view of the pharisees, if it is not explicit, then it must be made explicit and all rules must have explicit limitations. The presumption tends to be negative, that if there is a negative rumor, it is most probably "fact".

I would for example bring forth the context of Hugh B Brown and Harold B Lee. To state something is "blocked" is rather simplistic unless one understands clearly how church governance works within the frame of the Doctrine and Covenants. Unanimity is a key word in such an exercise, whether singular or multiple in dissent, only one need be in dissent.

A question can be asked two ways.

1-Who can have the priesthood

2-Who may not have the priesthood

Must it be verbal through specific revelation always? Or can archtype example be used? In other words, is an example provided? When the priesthood was restored, did a woman do so? More to the point, was a priesthood and line restored by women to women? Or even perhaps by angels to women?

My point is this, that small minds, minor minds, those minds that seek fault in the Lord and His annointed and then when pressed "dodge" supporting their own words. Such people tend to be the stumbling blocks for man. I prefer this from the Doctrine and Covenants.

For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time.

Those who have faith, will still be there when all things are known in due time. Everyone else? Chaff...

[Lamanite]

It is an endorsement that the Lord is in control of this Church.

I agree. My position does not question his ultimate authority.

Big UP!

Lamanite.

[Jason]

I am at a loss as to how to respond to not one, but two, unwritten revelations that prevent more than half the Church's members from holding the Priesthood.

You, like so many others, have more faith than I.

As I said, you obviously do not wish to answer my original question. Rather than using weasel words and rephrasing or just flat-out ignoring the question, it would be refreshing if you simply said "I won't answer that."

[Brenda]

I agree. My position does not question his ultimate authority.

Big UP!

Lamanite.

IMO, any suggestion that the ban did not originate with the Lord, DOES question His authority.

[Lamanite]

IMO, any suggestion that the ban did not originate with the Lord, DOES question His authority.

How so?

We have no evidence of any revelation ever instituting the ban. Conversely, we have DOM and others stating that it is absolutely not a doctrine but merely a practice. A practice that was a logistical nightmare. I spoke with Greg Kearny last year after he made a search of the Church archives looking for anything that would instruct Priesthood leaders on how to operate within the ban. There was nothing codified in any manual. By the 50's the ban was absolutely incapable of identifying who should be banned and how to detect "African" decent. The idea that you were "black" and therefore banned was silly. The Church was almost incapable of enforcing the practice.

May I suggest a thorough reading of Prince's biography of DOM, Ed Kimballs biography on Kimball's presidency, and maybe Armaund Mauss' All Abrahams children as a start.

The Lord waited not for blacks to be ready to receive the priesthood but for his people to be ready to receive without prejudice our black brethren. The practice was and has always been a poor reflection of the Saints.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[tsubotsubo]

IMO, any suggestion that the ban did not originate with the Lord, DOES question His authority.

But surely when we use the "He was speaking as a man" arguement (which anti-mormons find VERY annoying, because it makes most of their arguements useless, but in my opinion, it is a perfectly valid arguement), doesn't that also question His authority?

I think it came from God, but I don't think we should rule out the possiblity that it may've just been for some other reason. Brigham Young being racist, for example, would be quite depressing, but it wouldn't disprove our religion.

Since we don't know a whole lot about the origin of the Priesthood ban, I think we should keep a bit open-minded about it.

[why me]

It looks interesting, what is the gist? http://www.blacksinthescriptures.com/

It has been responsible for bringing many black members into the church and helping those who had a problem with the priesthood ban.

http://www.ldsgenesi.../heralddoc.html

Black-and-White Issue:

New DVD Aims to Dispel Cloud of Racism Hanging Over LDS Church

By Cody Clark

[why me]

Since we don't know a whole lot about the origin of the Priesthood ban, I think we should keep a bit open-minded about it.

We know quite a lot:

Here is the podcast:

http://www.staylds.com/?p=234

[why me]

How so?

We have no evidence of any revelation ever instituting the ban. Conversely, we have DOM and others stating that it is absolutely not a doctrine but merely a practice.

Lamanite

It was actually a policy and not a practice.

[emeliza]

I own the Blacks in The Scriptures DVD. I highly enjoyed it. If I were teaching this lesson, I personally would stay away from speculation. You can mention that we don't know why it happened and there is no written revelation that shows that it was a doctrine, but we have revelation showing that the practice or possible doctrine was to be ended and that is what happened.

My understanding is that Elijah Able and his children received the priesthood and then one other man, but as far as I can tell no other black men (as in African) did until the ban was lifted.

[Zakuska]

Amen.

The slave issue was one of the main things that got JS killed by other whites who painted themsleves black to do the deed. IMO It was just to volitilie an issue to deal with strictly from a religious POV. Not until civics backed it up was the world ready for the truth. And the Lord rolled it away.

[Zakuska]

I own the Blacks in The Scriptures DVD. I highly enjoyed it. If I were teaching this lesson, I personally would stay away from speculation. You can mention that we don't know why it happened and there is no written revelation that shows that it was a doctrine, but we have revelation showing that the practice or possible doctrine was to be ended and that is what happened.

My understanding is that Elijah Able and his children received the priesthood and then one other man, but as far as I can tell no other black men (as in African) did until the ban was lifted.

Fijian "Blacks" were given it clear back in the 50's IIRC.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The Lord waited not for blacks to be ready to receive the priesthood but for his people to be ready to receive without prejudice our black brethren. The practice was and has always been a poor reflection of the Saints.

Let's assume for a moment that the first part of this proposition is true, that the 'ban' had nothing to do with Africans (not blacks, as others have pointed out) being ready to receive the priesthood but the Church being ready to receive African members. (This, by the way, is my own personal position.) Why then does it always have to be about racism or prejudice???

Jacob 5 makes it very clear that the Lord has in place an orderly plan for extending the blessings of the gospel to various peoples, and it further explains that one of the main considerations is that His plan is designed to keep the roots of the natural olive tree from being overwhelmed by the branches. Branches are grafted in a few here and a few there only as the roots are strong enough--prepared enough, one could say--to receive and to nourish them.

I could be wrong because my conclusion is based on my very narrow personal experience, but I've never met a less racist people in my life than the Latter-day Saints. The first time I ever heard anything remotely prejudiced from the lips of a Church member was exactly ten years ago, and it floored me due to its novelty. I've had that experience now a total of twice in my life.

For one year, I worked on a island which had a distinct mix of 'races' on it--descendants of African slaves, white Europeans, Indians brought in to labour by the British, and brown migrants from nearby islands with a more Hispanic heritage. It was the most racially divided place I've ever lived. People simply didn't mix, anywhere. They lived in separate parts of the islands, for the most part. There were white churches and black churches and brown churches. People hurled racially charged insults at each other in the streets. There existed one refuge from this madness on the entire island, and it was our branch chapel, where everyone was literally so jumbled up that it was impossible to tell which kids belonged to which families when one walked in the door, 'race' notwithstanding. Inside, we were literally Zion. We lived in each others homes and lives and hearts. Everyone belonged; everyone was valued.

The ward I live in now contains a crazy mixture of races and national origins. I don't find the term 'race' very helpful, but I think most people would identify at least four in our ward each Sunday. In addition to that, we have active members whose first languages number at least seven. National origins would top that. I'll be honest: We don't always understand each other (and I'm not talking about just language issues here). Sometimes we step on each other's toes inadvertently. But everyone puts forth his/her best effort to reach out, to mix, to understand, to love, and to serve each other. Our crazy little mini-UN works.

So, since we're all just speculating, why don't we agree that the Church wasn't ready to take the gospel into Africa (I've read studies which suggest we still aren't very good at this one, 'unofficial Mormon congregations' still flourishing in some areas) or into the struggling inner-city areas of North America until a few decades ago, but let's not unnecessarily jump to the conclusion of prejudice or some other ugly charge against the Saints. As my African housemate confirmed last night, the Lord has His own timetable.

[Lamanite]

It was actually a policy and not a practice.

I'm sure there is a subtle nuance that supports the difference in the distinction. But I think my assertions are clear.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Fijian "Blacks" were given it clear back in the 50's IIRC.

Thank you for making my point. The Brazilian blacks were another issue that needed clarification. Then the aborigines. Then Dutch South African blacks that may or may not have been mixed. How to tell?

Big UP!

Lamanite