Dispelling the Black Myth

[Libs]

Libs:

I've never looked at the Priesthood as a reward or as a punishment.

The priesthood ban was seen as a "curse", by most LDS (especially in the past). I think that is beyond mere punishment.

Kind of difficult to see the withholding of priesthood and temple blessings as being something positive.

[selek]

The priesthood ban was seen as a "curse", by most LDS (especially in the past). I think that is beyond mere punishment.

Call For References, Libs.

I've seen where the Ban was blamed upon the "Curse of Cain", but not one authoritative source claiming that the Ban itself was a "curse".

Kind of difficult to see the withholding of priesthood and temple blessings as being something positive.

And yet the "withholding" of which you speak was NEVER more than temporary.

It was always acknowledged that the Ban would be lifted and that all faithful Saints would partake of Temple and priesthood blessings.

[Libs]

Call For References, Libs.

I've seen where the Ban was blamed upon the "Curse of Cain", but not one authoritative source claiming that the Ban itself was a "curse".

I said it was a "belief". I said nothing about it being "official"...although, Brigham and others certainly seemed to believe it was a curse that would always be.

[Calm]

although, Brigham and others certainly seemed to believe it was a curse that would always be.

CFR that the ban was first the curse and second that it was eternal.

I know of at least two statements that contradict your claim, please present at least that many to support it, including one from BY.

[selek]

I said it was a "belief".

No- you said, "The priesthood ban was seen as a "curse", by most LDS (especially in the past). " (emphasis mine).

I'd like to see some documentation to supoport this rather insulting observation.

I said nothing about it being "official"...although, Brigham and others certainly seemed to believe it was a curse that would always be.

Again, Call For References- Brigham Young himself said the curse would one day be lifted.

And please, drop the weasel words like "seemed to think"- they simply flag the fact that your are pushing YOUR interpretation of the speakers, rather than what they actually said.

[Libs]

No, I am not going to bring Brigham Young quotes onto this thread (speaking of insulting). I think you know which ones I'm talking about.

That's all I have to say about this.

[selek]

No, I am not going to bring Brigham Young quotes onto this thread (speaking of insulting). I think you know which ones I'm talking about.

That's all I have to say about this.

Then you retract your assertions?

Fine with me....

...since you have proved unwilling to support your charges, we can assume the following:

• That the Priesthood is neither a reward nor a punishment, but a sacred covenant to serve.
  
• The priesthood ban was NOT seen as a "curse", by most LDS.
  
• That Brigham and others did NOT- despite what you implied- believe that the Ban was a curse or that it would always be.
  

Thank you for the concession....

[cinepro]

Libs:

I've never looked at the Priesthood as a reward or as a punishment.

That sounds suspiciously close to "Seperate but equal".

"It isn't a reward or punishment to have or not have the priesthood, so they shouldn't care that every other worthy man in the world can have it except for them."

[cinepro]

It was always acknowledged that the Ban would be lifted and that all faithful Saints would partake of Temple and priesthood blessings.

Just so we're all clear, can you present the quotes in which it was acknowledged? Were these private or public acknowledgments?

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

I joined the Church in 1971. Seven years before the ban was lifted. I didn't believe the Priesthood was a reward or punishment even then.

Was the lack of Priesthood a punishment to those not the first born sons of the Levite Priests?

Was the lack of Priesthood a punishment to those that Jesus did not go to during his mortal ministry?

To be sure some in the Church did use the ban as an excuse to treat their Black Brothers and Sisters wrongly. For that they have cause to repent. But I am willing to forgive their few sins if they are willing to forgive me my many sins.

[sjdawg]

1. The Book of Mormon references to "dark" "light" etc. are primarily referring to ones SPIRIT and COUNTENANCE, not their skin color.

Which references refer to spiritual color and not skin color?

[sjdawg]

2. The Priesthood "ban" was ONLY for those of "African" decent. Even whites were denied the Priesthood due to such a lineage. Further, BLACKS of the Islands, some other country's, and some of Central/South America WERE given the Priesthood, and they were just as black, as well as all other colors. The ban was lineage, not skin color or racism.

If true, what is the logic for banning those of African decent from holding the priesthood. Is being born in Africa a sign of having been less valiant somewhere along the way. This is the first time (never spent much time researching it) that I have heard the ban was based on anything other than skin color.

[sjdawg]

2. You do know that a revelation finally was given, and that the revelation indirectly states that the ban was directed by God? Of course, I'm not saying there was a "direct" revelation for instituting the ban, but as the Church does many things, revelation to the leaders directly guides much of how this church operates.

I know only that a revelation was claimed to state those things. I have my doubts about the divine origins of such a revelation

[sjdawg]

1 know that the Church and most of it's members and leaders were not racist. They in fact preached against such evils. Now, was there some ethno-centrist statements. Yes. Was there some views of various people attempting to "explain" the whys of the ban, that were wrong and even outright disrespectful? Yes. But, such is the human experience. When God doesn't say something, people are free to have their own views, and up until the last 20-30 years people felt more free to teach what they felt. Today however, the Church strives to ensure only "doctrine" is taught, not speculations no matter how true they might be, because sometimes they are false as we all have learned.

Were the Church members and leadership not racist in the same way they are not homophobic? Love the gay person, hate his gayness

[Obiwan]

I've heard this explanation, before, but does it really make sense to give the priesthood to a people (a race) that was actually perpetuating the racism...and not to their victims? Doesn't seem right, does it?

Your statement falls under the false assumption that a "race" or a people were actually the "racists". First, whites and all other colors make up many different races, thus there is no "one race" that is "racist" in nature as your claiming, thus your logic fails. Second, I don't know your views, but I have found that most mormons no matter the race actually "were" even racist. Yes, maybe a good half were "ethno-centrist", but certainly not racist.

Further, it's not about being a "victim". Not being given the Priesthood was more for the sake of the Priesthood itself, whatever God's reasons. We are of course speculating here. There is also another possibility. It could and can still also be a "test" for the African man and woman, that they are to learn to come to God, see things through his eyes, rather than be blinded by mans views of things or social conventions. Maybe they needed time to "prepare"?

Really, bottom line is we don't know, but there are several potential possibility's, reasonable ones. Thus, no need to call the Church or it's people "racist", especially when such was never the emphasis.