Lifting the Ban on Blacks

[mfbukowski]

You are correct. I think that you have a good perspective on it which also comes directly from the John Dehlin podcast and the Blacks in the Scripture DVD.

LOL

I am not surprised. Marvin is Marvin Perkins who put out the DVD.

[why me]

And those are the facts, though some will try and make all kinds of hay out of it. Mostly for their own personal reasons and not the Lord's.

Mormons should take heart from the mistakes of the former leadership. No one is perfect and we all allow our prejudice at times to influence our judgement. I tend to like it when leaders are imperfect and certainly Brigham and others were far from perfect, thank heavens.

The lesson we can learn from all this is: go easy on ourselves when we sin or make a mistake.

[why me]

LOL

I am not surprised. Marvin is Marvin Perkins who put out the DVD.

I know...I did not want to spill the beans. Now go eat your spinach.

[mfbukowski]

I know...I did not want to spill the beans. Now go eat your spinach.

Yeah, sure, now that I have beans all over me.

[Jeff K.]

Well if God talked to me directly like he did Abraham. I would be far more inclined to believe a seemingly nonsensical ban on those with African ancestry. Since I have not yet had the please and since I am well aware men make mistakes I am far more inclined to believe BY simply made a mistake it happens he was human. It appears to me you will not budge no matter what evidence is supplied. I do respect your iron clad faith it reminds me of those who refuse to accept anything less than a global flood. I find such a position unnecessary but I do have a certain respect to such a "go down fighting" attitude although I personally find it to be poor apologetics. I mean sure it is always possible God really was the author of such a seemingly nonsensical ban and he is engaging in some kind of test of faith sans Abraham but I doubt it . In any case it is unlikely we are going to come to an agreement on this issue.

When you state "if God spoke to you directly, as he did Abraham" you in effect make stipulations to God. If it doesn't make sense, he must reveal himself directly to you for it to make sense. Faith, in other words, has no part in your actions, merely confirmation of what you must do. The death or murder if you will, of a child you have been blessed with is far more nonsensical than merely denying someone something. Or in the least, equally nonsensical (to borrow your words).

Nor by the way is my faith "iron". It is faith to be sure, but with a heavy dose of logic. The logic is fairly straight forward too. Consider that we know, to our knowledge, that many prophets in this dispensation have indeed inquired of the Lord for an answer, and consider that the answer has remained, for various reasons, negative. Given those points we have to ask ourselves whether or not revelation is closed, or whether or not it was "actively" signaled that the time was not then, at the time of inquiry, but at a later date. It is something you cannot have both ways. The inquiry is there, the stupor of thought or direct denial is also there. Does it make sense that the Lord would actively compound the mistakes of fallible men?

The alternative, as I have stated is that revelation has been closed and we are all now blind. I cannot accept that, anymore than I can accept God's direct acquiesence of a "mistake" made by one prophet at an earlier date, a mistake that would exist for well over a century, with prophets inquiring.

it reminds me of those who refuse to accept anything less than a global flood. I find such a position unnecessary but I do have a certain respect to such a "go down fighting" attitude although I personally find it to be poor apologetics.

Then you are not given to much thoughtful discourse since you seem to conflate faith with stubbornness, and the questions of a world wide flood with the question of priesthood being withheld.

I know of no established doctrine that states clearly that we must believe in such a thing as the traditional concept of a world wide flood. No blessing or ordinance is denied those who hold that belief and so it is not of great relevance when considering the allegoraical nature that the Old Testament may take. I don't respect the "go down fighting attitude", I think such a thing belittles both the listener and the speaker. And to presume one does this for that reason is to belittle faith in others with something bordering on contempt. I generally reject such principles since they reflect the charge of someone who is closed minded rather than seeking understanding.

Poor apologetics is conflating issues and presuming motives not in evidence.

I mean sure it is always possible God really was the author of such a seemingly nonsensical ban and he is engaging in some kind of test of faith sans Abraham but I doubt it . In any case it is unlikely we are going to come to an agreement on this issue.

I am sure you sincerely want to believe that, while in fact, given prophetic inquiry it is not only possible or plausible, but likely. You just don't like the answer because to your capacity of understanding it is non sensical, and of course many things that Mormons do would be nonsensical to those who do not have faith in the Mormon church.

[ACW]

According to a recent Dialog article, that documentary has a black minister who knew President Hinckley, and this guy says President Hinckley actually apologized for the ban. Is that correct?

If you go to the Nobody Knows website and watch the trailer it has a Pastor Cecil "Chip" Murray of the First AME Church talking about having gone to SLC and meeting with various church leaders where an apology was given. You should watch this documentary...It contains documented facts and some personal testimony and opinion. I highlighted opinion because the opinions expresed are somewhat hmmm...strong. I'm not very good with words so you will just have to watch this and judge for yourself. Not only is this worth buying...it is also worth sharing.

[Jason]

No doubt God can certainly do whatever he wants. I am not sure I am getting my point across. If BY claims God said a group of people for example those with African ancestry can't hold the priesthood. But it is later discovered every living human has African ancestry including BY thus excluding BY himself from holding the priesthood. Stating BY was wrong about who can and can't hold the priesthood is not questioning the ability of God to do whatever he wants it is questioning whether BY accurately portrayed Gods opinion. In other words I am not questioning God I am questioning BY they are not the same person .

That first bit depends on two things:

1) What is meant by "African ancestry".

2) Whether the discovery that all living humans have African ancestry is accurate and uses the same terminology as (1).

On the face of it, the idea that all humankind originated in Africa appears to contradict LDS theology that Adam originated in North America.

[emeliza]

A male does not need to wear a white shirt to pass the sacrament. I believe that this is folklore and not fact. But it is only my opinion.

I think it is mostly a policy, but it has been brought up by GA's and our Bishop enforces it. He has never stopped someone in the middle, but he has approached them afterwards and asked them not to do so again.

[emeliza]

LOL

I am not surprised. Marvin is Marvin Perkins who put out the DVD.

Okay, I need to be a dork, but....how dreamy. Marvin Perkins is a doll.

[Jason]

I think it is mostly a policy, but it has been brought up by GA's and our Bishop enforces it. He has never stopped someone in the middle, but he has approached them afterwards and asked them not to do so again.

Come to think of it, there's no written revelation that we should all dress up for Church, is there? It must be a mistake!

[ACW]

I know I'm a little late to this party, but just received an invitation via email to join so here I am.

We don't have to speculate. The scriptures are very clear. There is only one place in all of scripture where the Lord says that a certain group of people cannot have rights to the priesthood. That's in D&C 121:21. And here He was speaking of those who persecuted the Saints, driving and murdering them. But in Section 124 He even says even they can repent and come unto Him to receive the blessings. So as Joseph Smith needed to get instruction on how to set up the Lord's church, it would make sense that if the Lord wanted to be a respecter of persons, He would have given Joseph the command not to give Blacks the priesthood. But He did just the opposite. At least 12 times the Lord commanded the prophet to give priesthood to all men. See D&C 36:4-5, 7, 63:57 And so he did. There were several Blacks who held the priesthood. Elijah Able, Walker Lewis, William McCary, Black Pete, Joseph T. Ball et.

Also, there's no record of any revelation, inspiration or anything like it to restrict priesthood from Blacks. And if there were, wouldn't it make sense that so many of the incorrect teachings from leaders would have been created?

Hi Marvin!!! So good to have you here!!!

[why me]

I think it is mostly a policy, but it has been brought up by GA's and our Bishop enforces it. He has never stopped someone in the middle, but he has approached them afterwards and asked them not to do so again.

It is a policy that is not really a policy. There is nothing wrong with passing the sacrament with a colored shirt. I have seen yellow, blue, black etc shirts worn by men passing the sacrament. It depends on the ward or branch and its own policy.

Let me put it this way: No one should be forced to wear a white shirt to church. But I understand why the bishopric may want to follow the GAs with wearing a white shirt.

[why me]

Hi Marvin!!! So good to have you here!!!

His DVD has been very influential with members, especially with african american members in helping them stay in the church and giving understanding to the past.

[why me]

Come to think of it, there's no written revelation that we should all dress up for Church, is there? It must be a mistake!

I think that it is a recommendation which some bishops have taken for a commandment. I think that it is a part of Mormon folklore. But it is just my opinion.

[emeliza]

Come to think of it, there's no written revelation that we should all dress up for Church, is there? It must be a mistake!

We are encouraged to wear our best to Church. We are not forced to wear our best to Church and if we choose not to wear our best to Church, it won't hold us up from getting a TR. Same goes for a white shirt. However it is at the Bishops disgression on whether you can pass the sacrament and I see nothing wrong with this. He has this ability even if you are wearing a white shirt.

[mfbukowski]

Okay, I need to be a dork, but....how dreamy. Marvin Perkins is a doll.

I'm sure his wife agrees!

[mfbukowski]

I think that it is a recommendation which some bishops have taken for a commandment. I think that it is a part of Mormon folklore. But it is just my opinion.

It is a standard for missionaries, GA's, etc. and serves virtually the same purpose as a uniform when you are on the Lord's errands. But this line is a derailment- let's start a new thread if we want to discuss it.

Sorry for being a Nanny- but I know how fast things go off track, and this is an important subject.

[ACW]

His DVD has been very influential with members, especially with african american members in helping them stay in the church and giving understanding to the past.

The black members love it and some white members but too many white members shy away from it. They would be more willing to watch it if it were put out by The Church. Same goes for Nobody Knows...it is very frustrating...especially since I live in Alabama and I see these dvds as wonderful missionary tools.

[Uncertain]

When you state "if God spoke to you directly, as he did Abraham" you in effect make stipulations to God. If it doesn't make sense, he must reveal himself directly to you for it to make sense. Faith, in other words, has no part in your actions, merely confirmation of what you must do. The death or murder if you will, of a child you have been blessed with is far more nonsensical than merely denying someone something. Or in the least, equally nonsensical (to borrow your words).

Well in terms of things I know come from God. First on the list would be things God told be directly a good ways down the list would be things someone else tells me come from God.

Nor by the way is my faith "iron". It is faith to be sure, but with a heavy dose of logic. The logic is fairly straight forward too. Consider that we know, to our knowledge, that many prophets in this dispensation have indeed inquired of the Lord for an answer, and consider that the answer has remained, for various reasons, negative. Given those points we have to ask ourselves whether or not revelation is closed, or whether or not it was "actively" signaled that the time was not then, at the time of inquiry, but at a later date. It is something you cannot have both ways. The inquiry is there, the stupor of thought or direct denial is also there. Does it make sense that the Lord would actively compound the mistakes of fallible men?

As already stated the fact that the ban lasted as long as it did if viewed from a certain perspective is certainly evidence the ban was God breathed. It is just not sufficient evidence to overcome the very strong objections to such a view.

The alternative, as I have stated is that revelation has been closed and we are all now blind. I cannot accept that, anymore than I can accept God's direct acquiesence of a "mistake" made by one prophet at an earlier date, a mistake that would exist for well over a century, with prophets inquiring.

I am not sure I accept your "alternatives". If BY got it wrong why couldn't any of the other prophets? Again you seem to be arguing that yes prophets are fallible but they are not this fallible. I understand your position I just don't see why your view of just how fallible prophets can be should be the view accepted by all. In any case all of this is entirely besides the point the priesthood ban as formulated does not work. Arguing prophets should have picked up on this sooner does not address this fundamental point. The priesthood ban as defined would ban every living human being from holding the priesthood. Therefore clearly and unmistakable the priesthood ban is man made.

Then you are not given to much thoughtful discourse since you seem to conflate faith with stubbornness, and the questions of a world wide flood with the question of priesthood being withheld.

I know of no established doctrine that states clearly that we must believe in such a thing as the traditional concept of a world wide flood. No blessing or ordinance is denied those who hold that belief and so it is not of great relevance when considering the allegoraical nature that the Old Testament may take. I don't respect the "go down fighting attitude", I think such a thing belittles both the listener and the speaker. And to presume one does this for that reason is to belittle faith in others with something bordering on contempt. I generally reject such principles since they reflect the charge of someone who is closed minded rather than seeking understanding.

Poor apologetics is conflating issues and presuming motives not in evidence.

The point I was attempting to make was the global flood is a great example of continued belief in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is overwhelming evidence the priesthood ban is man made and yet people still stubbornly cling to the idea God wanted this to happen.

In any case I think this discussion has gone about as far as it will go. I doubt I will change your mind and it is doubtful you will change mine. I believe I understand your position and hopefully you understand mine I will leave it to the readers to decide which they find more convincing.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 03 December 2009 - 02:23 PM, said:

When you state "if God spoke to you directly, as he did Abraham" you in effect make stipulations to God. If it doesn't make sense, he must reveal himself directly to you for it to make sense. Faith, in other words, has no part in your actions, merely confirmation of what you must do. The death or murder if you will, of a child you have been blessed with is far more nonsensical than merely denying someone something. Or in the least, equally nonsensical (to borrow your words).

Well in terms of things I know come from God. First on the list would be things God told be directly a good ways down the list would be things someone else tells me come from God.

How far down that list would "starting a new religion with a teenager be? Lists of what we think are probable are invariably turned over by the reality that God doesn't follow our lists.

Jeff K., on 03 December 2009 - 02:23 PM, said:

Nor by the way is my faith "iron". It is faith to be sure, but with a heavy dose of logic. The logic is fairly straight forward too. Consider that we know, to our knowledge, that many prophets in this dispensation have indeed inquired of the Lord for an answer, and consider that the answer has remained, for various reasons, negative. Given those points we have to ask ourselves whether or not revelation is closed, or whether or not it was "actively" signaled that the time was not then, at the time of inquiry, but at a later date. It is something you cannot have both ways. The inquiry is there, the stupor of thought or direct denial is also there. Does it make sense that the Lord would actively compound the mistakes of fallible men?

As already stated the fact that the ban lasted as long as it did if viewed from a certain perspective is certainly evidence the ban was God breathed. It is just not sufficient evidence to overcome the very strong objections to such a view.

Strong assertions perhaps but not strong objections.

Jeff K., on 03 December 2009 - 02:23 PM, said:

The alternative, as I have stated is that revelation has been closed and we are all now blind. I cannot accept that, anymore than I can accept God's direct acquiesence of a "mistake" made by one prophet at an earlier date, a mistake that would exist for well over a century, with prophets inquiring.

I am not sure I accept your "alternatives". If BY got it wrong why couldn't any of the other prophets? Again you seem to be arguing that yes prophets are fallible but they are not this fallible. I understand your position I just don't see why your view of just how fallible prophets can be should be the view accepted by all. In any case all of this is entirely besides the point the priesthood ban as formulated does not work. Arguing prophets should have picked up on this sooner does not address this fundamental point. The priesthood ban as defined would ban every living human being from holding the priesthood. Therefore clearly and unmistakable the priesthood ban is man made.

I am not sure I accept your "alternatives". If BY got it wrong why couldn't ALL of the other prophets?

A single incidence of error? Perhaps. Two even? Certainly less likely. We aren't sure how often the prophets inquired. But let us assume several times, and in each lifetime. They they got it all wrong ALL those times? Or are you presuming they ask but once in a lifetime? Now that does seem nonsensical to me.

The preisthood ban, as you formulated it (ie couched it) cannot be made to work, but really any defense lawyer can couch things and make them "unworkable". As mentioned elsewhere, it also depends on how "African descent" is defined and what it entails. Was the ban a precise instrument that only affected a few? Was the ban akin to the fall of Jerusalem whence some righteous and unrighteous both fell to the sword? Does that negate God?

From what generation does "African descent" as defined begin? African as in Libyan? Roman? Earlier later? You make a broad brush statement to "couch" your position, but it may not be as broad, nor as narrow as we believe. The lynch pin is prophecy and prophets. Their continued ban reflects an imprimatur of Gods authorization, unless one rejects revelation as an ongoing tool of our church's leaders.

So I reject your specific characterization of the priesthood ban.

The point I was attempting to make was the global flood is a great example of continued belief in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is overwhelming evidence the priesthood ban is man made and yet people still stubbornly cling to the idea God wanted this to happen.

You presume a belief in a vacuum with no outside influence. The priesthood ban is not such a thing. And I have not seen the overwhelming evidence as you have called it. I have seen a strong assertion, with the proviso that somehow ALL the prophets who inquired what must be SEVERAL times, got it wrong. Which I find reflective less of its accuracy and more on the question faith in a prophets revelatory power. Your assertion might have had more validity had we been in John Taylor's period (directly after what you presuppose is Brigham Young's error), but falls to deminimus after nearly a century and a score of prophets. It appears your position is less secure than you may wish to believe.

[emeliza]

I'm sure his wife agrees!

Yep, I am sure she does. And from his comments on Blacks In the Scriptures, I believe he feels the same about her. My 'crush' is purely platonic and based on his work.

[Hamba Tuhan]

OK, I know that Popeye wants to avoid a derail, but I find it interesting that, in the midst of a thread dealing with speculations on priesthood restrictions, we end up speculating on white shirts. Is it policy? Folklore? Something a bishop can enforce if he wants? A commandment? Tradition? This almost exactly parallels the debate on the actual topic of the thread. Significantly, no one has actually bothered to state what the unambiguous position of the Church is. From Book 1 of the Church Handbook of Instructions:

Those who bless and pass the sacrament should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. White shirts and ties are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress or appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church.

Here we have a clear and simple statement, yet people still feel the need to stake out and sometimes enforce a position which opposes some facet of this policy. Do we have a parallel situation when it comes to the actual topic of this thread--the 1978 revelation and the authoritative statements of the prophets both before and since?

[Pahoran]

That is Rev. Cecil Murray, and President Hinckley apologized to him for the church's role in slavery and racism in America.

Marvin,

Welcome to the forum. This is a topic that percolates up on a regular basis, so I hope you will continue to look in from time to time. Your perspective will be a most valuable one.

What do you see as the Church's role in slavery and racism in America?

Regards,

Pahoran

[paulpatter]

Mormons should take heart from the mistakes of the former leadership. No one is perfect and we all allow our prejudice at times to influence our judgement. I tend to like it when leaders are imperfect and certainly Brigham and others were far from perfect, thank heavens.

Excellent point! To me, the frailties of our leaders demonstrate that they, too, are here to learn and progress. The Lord isn't giving them a pass.

Why some members insist on putting our leaders on pedestals--at about the altitude of the Angel Moroni on our temples--is beyond me. I'm quite sure that virtually all of them (I can think of an exception or two) don't want to be there. Some members become discouraged and depressed because they compare themselves to the leadership and feel they can never measure up. . .never be good enough. "What's the use?" they ask themselves. I don't know if there's a correlation between Utah's high prescription drug use and the circumstance I have described, but I think it's a possibility.

The lesson we can learn from all this is: go easy on ourselves when we sin or make a mistake.

Again, right on!

Recently a contributor to this forum asked, "What's the point?" [of this thread]. Thanks for providing a thoroughly compelling answer.

[Jeff K.]

OK, I know that Popeye wants to avoid a derail, but I find it interesting that, in the midst of a thread dealing with speculations on priesthood restrictions, we end up speculating on white shirts. Is it policy? Folklore? Something a bishop can enforce if he wants? A commandment? Tradition? This almost exactly parallels the debate on the actual topic of the thread. Significantly, no one has actually bothered to state what the unambiguous position of the Church is. From Book 1 of the Church Handbook of Instructions:

Here we have a clear and simple statement, yet people still feel the need to stake out and sometimes enforce a position which opposes some facet of this policy. Do we have a parallel situation when it comes to the actual topic of this thread--the 1978 revelation and the authoritative statements of the prophets both before and since?

As always with the church we see common sense as the watchword while men make it appear "nonsensical"