The Current Prieshood Ban.

[consiglieri]

It is my position that the Priesthood is not a "civil right," and the "civil rights movement" had nothing to do with the Priesthood.

In any event, what does that have to do with jumping on the bandwagon because everyone else is doing it, instead of doing things the Lord's way?

So the fact the LDS Church gave blacks the priesthood only after the civil rights movement was well under way is merely a coincidence?

Had there been no civil rights movement, do you believe the "Lord's way" would still have been to give blacks the priesthood in 1978?

Had the federal government not instituted legal action to divest the LDS Church of all its property, temples included, do you think the "Lord's way" would still have been to issue the Manifesto in 1890?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Nathair/|\]

So the fact the LDS Church gave blacks the priesthood only after the civil rights movement was well under way is merely a coincidence?

Had there been no civil rights movement, do you believe the "Lord's way" would still have been to give blacks the priesthood in 1978?

Had the federal government not instituted legal action to divest the LDS Church of all its property, temples included, do you think the "Lord's way" would still have been to issue the Manifesto in 1890?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You may be right in a way, but i think that rather than creating the impetus for the ending of the ban, the Civil Rights movement merely created a climate where the ban could be repealed. It is fortunate that the climate changed before the era of massive baptisms in Africa.

Yours under the oaks of perspective,

Nathair /|\

Alban Eilir - The Vernal Equinox

21/22 March Northern Hemisphere

Winter sometimes seems so long, that we could be for-given for wondering whether Spring will ever return. But the Goddess of Spring is merely sleeping through the darkness of Winter, and while she stirs at Imbolc, she is truly awake by the time of the Spring Equinox.

The forces of light are equally balanced with the forces of darkness at this time, but light is on the increase - and will reach its apogee at the Summer Solstice three months later.

[Jeff K.]

So the fact the LDS Church gave blacks the priesthood only after the civil rights movement was well under way is merely a coincidence?

Had there been no civil rights movement, do you believe the "Lord's way" would still have been to give blacks the priesthood in 1978?

Had the federal government not instituted legal action to divest the LDS Church of all its property, temples included, do you think the "Lord's way" would still have been to issue the Manifesto in 1890?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig:

I do not know your age, but I can attest that African Americans recieved the priesthood at what could only be called a "lull" relative to earlier years. The fact that the "Civil Rights Movement" was "well underway" is irrelevant. The movement itself had plateued into something of a bureacracy in which less pressure was applied than earlier when much more strenuous and active protests came into play in the late 1960's. If the movement had an impact, the church certainly could have chosen a better time to make its decision. As I recall the general reaction from non members was "so what". Whereas an earlier period, say in 1969, it would have been better in terms of race relations.

Had the federal government not instituted legal action to divest the LDS Church of all its property, temples included, do you think the "Lord's way" would still have been to issue the Manifesto in 1890?

An interesting question, but with two problems attached to it.

1-If one were due to governmental influence, it does not logically follow that 80 years later another would follow due to government influece (two data points almost 100 years apart do not indicate a trend).

2-One could turn the Lehi story and say he left Jerusalem, not because of divine commandment, but because he saw the political writing on the wall and decided to leave. The Lord does at times have good timing in conjunction with the world's issues. Or so one might gather from readings of the Old and New Testament.

How would, or could you distinguish between the Lords action at a propitious time (in terms of the Manifesto) and merely the actions of the church at a propitious time? I would argue that the Official Declaration did not occur at a propitious time.

[Pahoran]

So the fact the LDS Church gave blacks the priesthood only after the civil rights movement was well under way is merely a coincidence?

That's a clever, lawyerly way to put it. Yes, 1978 was indeed after the CR movement was "well under way;" it was, however, not while it was "well under way."

I realise that there are some people who would gnaw off their own arms before admitting that the Priesthood ban was lifted in the absence of any noticeable social pressure. I used to think you were not one of those.

I'm sorry to have been so sadly mistaken. But don't worry; I learn from my mistakes.

Had there been no civil rights movement, do you believe the "Lord's way" would still have been to give blacks the priesthood in 1978?

Yes.

The CR movement had nothing to do with the building of the Temple in Brazil. The CR movement had nothing to do with the thousands of converts the Church was attracting in Africa without any actual missionary work going on there. These, unlike the CR movement, were actual factors in President Kimball's deliberations.

Again: the Priesthood is not a "civil right." It is not honest to try to pretend that the two things have anything to do with each other. When do you plan to stop?

Had the federal government not instituted legal action to divest the LDS Church of all its property, temples included, do you think the "Lord's way" would still have been to issue the Manifesto in 1890?

Asked and answered.

Once again: each of these changes had its own unique circumstances. They were not like each other.

Who, in your malicious fantasy, is going to sponsor the next Edumnds-Tucker act to force the Church to ordain women?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

You surely can't be arrogant enough to assume that I'm going to let you dictate to me how to answer, can you?

Yes, I suppose you can.

There are plenty of good people who don't understand why Jesus chose exclusively men as apostles, and why women are not ordained to Priesthood offices. There are no good people -- especially in the Church -- who suppose that this is a state of affairs that ought to be addressed by agitating for change.

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

There are no good people -- especially in the Church -- who suppose that this is a state of affairs that ought to be addressed by agitating for change.

"No good people"?

Surely you don't really mean that, Pahoran.

Only "good people" agree with you on this issue?

I am beginning to wonder whether "good people" may disagree with you about anything.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ELF1024]

"No good people"?

Surely you don't really mean that, Pahoran.

Only "good people" agree with you on this issue?

I am beginning to wonder whether "good people" may disagree with you about anything.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

agitating = contention

3 Nephi 11:29

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

[David T]

agitating = contention

3 Nephi 11:29

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

agitating = campaign to arouse public concern about an issue in the hope of prompting action

Some who agitate are contentious. Some are not.

Some who disagree with those who agitate are contentious. Some are not.

Some who disagree with Pahoran's understanding of the world are unfaithful hell-bound apostates. But most probably aren't.

[Jeff K.]

Well, if you accept your singular definition of agitate, then perhaps you are right.

But out of curiousity....

ag

[ELF1024]

agitating = campaign to arouse public concern about an issue in the hope of prompting action

Some who agitate are contentious. Some are not.

Some who disagree with those who agitate are contentious. Some are not.

Some who disagree with Pahoran's understanding of the world are unfaithful hell-bound apostates. But most probably aren't.

I can't agrue with that.

[David T]

For the record, I'm not someone who would create or sign a petition to change a Church Policy. I am, however, in favor of sharing information I learn that may lead individuals to ask if something is Eternal Doctrine, or is simply a tradition. And if it is tradition, lead to one asking how vehemently opposed should one be to those who don't agree with it.

In the early 70s, a paper was written and printed in Dialogue called The Mormon Negro Doctrine, giving a detailed history of the roots of the ban, explanations given for it, and concluding that it had no scriptural basis, or an origin with Joseph Smith. This paper had quite a range of readership - among members and Church leaders alike.

While I don't want to be misconstrued as saying the paper caused the change, I do feel it probably served as a useful tool in the searching and pondering process that leads to revelatory conclusions.

Even though GAs have full access to the Church Archives, that doesn't mean they spend all their time in there researching details of doctrinal history. Papers that collate the information and present it in a non-polemical manner are useful.

I do love that the author of the Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism paper said explicitly in his podcast interview that he does not want this paper used as a weapon. He hopes it informs, and causes discussion, and adds to the conversation... but he hates it when history is used as a weapon in anyway. Its not his intent.

It's possible to have an interest, and to perhaps have 'Holy Envy' for either a past practice, or a practice of others, and still be faithful to the current leadership, doctrines, and policies of the Church