Which explanation for the Priesthood Ban makes the most sense?

[ttribe]

erichard belongs, IIRC, to one of the RLDS sects. He often refers to the Second Book of Commandments for example and uses one of those revelations to justify the continuation of the ban, IIRC, again. You can read his opinions by doing a search on his name and "ban" or "priesthood". He's been heavily criticized for his position in the past so he may not want to get into it in more detail than he has. erichard, please correct me if I am wrong and sorry that I misspoke your position if I have.

Ahhh...okay. Now you've reminded me. Thanks.

[alter idem]

erichard belongs, IIRC, to one of the RLDS sects. He often refers to the Second Book of Commandments for example and uses one of those revelations to justify the continuation of the ban, IIRC, again. You can read his opinions by doing a search on his name and "ban" or "priesthood". He's been heavily criticized for his position in the past so he may not want to get into it in more detail than he has. erichard, please correct me if I am wrong and sorry that I misspoke your position if I have.

Actually, it's not an RLDS sect. He belongs to a group who recognizes the revelations of Robert Crossfield who was excommunicated from the LDS church in 1972. I'm pretty sure his group does not consider themselves a separate church. They believe they are to wait until the Lord comes and straightens out the church so we accept their authority--something like that.

Here's a link regarding his group:

http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/ChartLinks/RobertCCrossfield.htm

[Storm Rider]

The difference is that the Levites did not believe to be superior race of people. The fact that the same race of people who are being subjected to slavery are the ones being excluded from the priesthood is a bit fishy.

That is not accurate. The Levites were the "chosen" people; they were very much superior to all others in their thoughts and actions. Race has always played a major role in history; it was a case of us versus them. It was Greek versus Persian, Egypt versus everyone else, etc.

[Jason]

The difference is that the Levites did not believe to be superior race of people. The fact that the same race of people who are being subjected to slavery are the ones being excluded from the priesthood is a bit fishy.

Do you mean the Levite's didn't believe they were superior? Do you have any evidence for that?

Isn't it a bit fishy that the tribe Moses and his brother belong to got the exclusive rights to the priesthood?

Certainly the Jews believed they were superior to everyone else in NT times. One might think it a bit fishy that Jesus, a Jew, would make a point of only preaching to Jews.

[cinepro]

There's a difference between selecting a specific tribe for a responsibility and excluding a specific race from something.

And that difference is?

I know a family that has ten kids.

One weekend, the father went to see a movie with one of the children (a daughter, Sarah). The other nine would have liked to go as well, but didn't feel to bad about it.

The next weekend, the father took nine of the kids, but refused to take the tenth (Wally). He offered no explanation.

Are the two situations similar? Or would you expect the feelings of the Wally to be different than the feelings of the nine in the first example? If they were different, would that be justifiable?

[Glenn101]

I know a family that has ten kids.

One weekend, the father went to see a movie with one of the children (a daughter, Sarah). The other nine would have liked to go as well, but didn't feel to bad about it.

The next weekend, the father took nine of the kids, but refused to take the tenth (Wally). He offered no explanation.

Are the two situations similar? Or would you expect the feelings of the Wally to be different than the feelings of the nine in the first example? If they were different, would that be justifiable?

No more different than Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

No explanation. Just go to lost sheep of Israel. The Samaritans and Gentiles were left out, at that time.

Evidently, at that time, none of the twelve had any idea that the Gospel would ever be preached to the Samaritans or Gentiles.

See Paul in Ephesians Chapter 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

This was not just the priesthood, but the gospel en toto.

Glenn

[Jason]

I know a family that has ten kids.

One weekend, the father went to see a movie with one of the children (a daughter, Sarah). The other nine would have liked to go as well, but didn't feel to bad about it.

The next weekend, the father took nine of the kids, but refused to take the tenth (Wally). He offered no explanation.

Are the two situations similar? Or would you expect the feelings of the Wally to be different than the feelings of the nine in the first example? If they were different, would that be justifiable?

You tell me - you're the one making up the reactions of the kids.

[cinepro]

You tell me - you're the one making up the reactions of the kids.

I think there's a material distinction between reserving responsibilities and/or privileges for a certain person (or group of people), and excluding a person (or group of people) from responsibilities and/or privileges that are enjoyed by everyone else.

Especially if that exclusion is based on race.

But I'm trying to figure out if that's just me, or if it's a general feeling among others as well.

[Jason]

I think there's a material distinction between reserving responsibilities and/or privileges for a certain person (or group of people), and excluding a person (or group of people) from responsibilities and/or privileges that are enjoyed by everyone else.

I don't see much difference. It seems just as likely to me for the 9 other kids to be upset at not being able to go to the movie because their dad was taking his favorite as it is that poor Wally will be upset that he's apparently the least favorite.

Especially if that exclusion is based on race.

You may indeed have a point that excluding based on race is unjustified, since race is something we can't choose, but that begs the question of whether the ban was really about race in the first place.

[StuddleyG]

Do you mean the Levite's didn't believe they were superior? Do you have any evidence for that?

Isn't it a bit fishy that the tribe Moses and his brother belong to got the exclusive rights to the priesthood?

I don't think having the priesthood under the law of Moses is a right that I would want to have. When I read the Old Testament, I feel bad for the Levites. The work that they had to doesn't seem very fun.

[Jason]

I don't think having the priesthood under the law of Moses is a right that I would want to have. When I read the Old Testament, I feel bad for the Levites. The work that they had to doesn't seem very fun.

That doesn't really answer the question. The fact that you feel sorry for them doesn't have much to do with how they felt about themselves, does it?

[StuddleyG]

That doesn't really answer the question. The fact that you feel sorry for them doesn't have much to do with how they felt about themselves, does it?

I guess you do have a point. Did they feel superior because they had the priesthood? Or did they feel superior before then?

[Glenn101]

Jason, on 24 June 2010 - 11:04 AM, said:

That doesn't really answer the question. The fact that you feel sorry for them doesn't have much to do with how they felt about themselves, does it?

I guess you do have a point. Did they feel superior because they had the priesthood? Or did they feel superior before then?

I doubt that they really felt superior. Not to start practicing psychology 101 without a license, but people who seek props to set themselves apart are really saying that they feel inferior.

Glenn

[USU78]

The following may have had something to do with it:

Dates of Independence from Colonial Rule for African Nations.

1993: Eritria

1990: Namibia

1980: Zimbabwe

1977: Djibouti

1976: Seychelles

1975: Mozambique, Cap Verde, Comoros, Sao Tome & Principe, Angola

1973: Guinea-Bissau

1968: Swaziland, Equitorial Guinnea, Mauritius

1966: Botswana, Lesotho

1965: Gambia

1964: Zambia, Malawi

1963: Kenya

1962: Uganda, Algeria, Burundi, Rwanda

1961: Tanzania, Sierra Leone, South Africa

1960: Congo, C.A.R., Chad, Ivory Coast, Burkino Faso, Niger, Benin, Somalia, D.R. Congo, Madagascar, Mali, Togo, Senegal, Cameroon

1958: Guinnea

1957: Ghana, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan

1953: Egypt

1951: Lybia

1847: Liberia

In the context of the above, it appears that 1978 occurred when the liberation of Subsaharan Africa had already substantially occurred. As free men, Africa and Africans were finally ready for the Priesthood.

Or not.

This is just something I've kicked around now and again.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Did they feel superior because they had the priesthood? Or did they feel superior before then?

I certainly don't feel superior because I have the priesthood.

I suspect much of the contention on this issue could be resolved by simply acknowledging that priesthood is not about superiority, and its lack is not about inferiority. It is a call to labour. Hard. To sacrifice. Often painfully. Yes, it is also a blessing, but the Lord of the vineyard seems to have an orderly plan for extending the blesings of such hard labour and painful sacrifice to His children.

[thesometimesaint]

StuddleyG:

Anyone who feels superior because they hold the Priesthood needs to loosen their halo. It is cutting off the blood flow to their brain.

[Damien the Leper]

Visit Black LDS and see things from a historical perspective.

[cinepro]

In the context of the above, it appears that 1978 occurred when the liberation of Subsaharan Africa had already substantially occurred. As free men, Africa and Africans were finally ready for the Priesthood.

Or not.

This is just something I've kicked around now and again.

If the ban had been somehow related to geography and colonial rule, you'd have a point. But since it was extended even to free men and women living in the USA and other "free" countries, I'm not sure the political status of "sub-Saharan Africa" is relevant to the ban.

If that is how God was thinking at the time, then I am thankful that he didn't institute a worldwide priesthood ban on people of Eastern European descent during the Cold War. That would have been sad.

But it's an interesting theory.

[erichard]

erichard belongs, IIRC, to one of the RLDS sects. He often refers to the Second Book of Commandments for example and uses one of those revelations to justify the continuation of the ban, IIRC, again. You can read his opinions by doing a search on his name and "ban" or "priesthood". He's been heavily criticized for his position in the past so he may not want to get into it in more detail than he has. erichard, please correct me if I am wrong and sorry that I misspoke your position if I have.

Hi, I just barely got back to this thread. Please excuse my delay. Here is my reason:

On Thursday I came out the back door of a building where I sometimes work, and some roofing guys were working on the 40 foot tall building next to it. They had a large truck with side rails in the alley and some guys up on the roof were lowering down things. I did not pay much attention.

When I got to the street I heard a noise and the crane they were using had broken off and was falling. I immediately looked at the large truck, and the guy in it jumped onto the cab and got away, and I remember thinking: Good, he will not get hurt.

Then the crane with its motor and base hit the side of the truck and bounced to the ground. Then unexpectedly a man hit the ground about ten feet further, hitting the side of a big rock and rolling off to the grass. It was surreal. People ran towards him so I ran to my vehicle and got my cell phone and called 911. The emergency people got there less than 7 minutes later.

The guy hit the ground about 25 feet from the 40 foot tall building, so the accident must have thrown him. He was Air Vaced to Dallas Texas, and I heard he cannot breath on his own. No telling how many broken bones he has. I think I had seen the guy before, but I did not really know him. I can just pray for him.

I have been somewhat sick to my stomach for the last two days because of this, and off sync.

Calmoriah,

The RLDS do not believe in any plural marriage nor any ban against blacks. I have no RLDS background. I grew up in the LDS church, went on a mission to Italy, and married in the Temple.

I believe in plural marriage when the Lord requires it, and I believe the ban against blacks was from the Lord, and it still stands. Neither of those convictions have any RLDS support that I know of.

Richard

[erichard]

Actually, I was hoping for an explanation from you for your statement.

Hi,

I believe the Lord has had a Prophet on the earth since 1961. The revelations he has been given are found in the Second Book of Commandments. These revelations are available for anyone to read, and I guess I was suggesting they are like a memo.

You can read excerpts of 2BC revelations about this matter here.

If you are interested in other topics, you can look at the list of links here.

Richard

[ttribe]

Hi,

I believe the Lord has had a Prophet on the earth since 1961. The revelations he has been given are found in the Second Book of Commandments. These revelations are available for anyone to read, and I guess I was suggesting they are like a memo.

You can read excerpts of 2BC revelations about this matter here.

If you are interested in other topics, you can look at the list of links here.

Richard

Gotcha. That's all I needed to know.