"Full Membership"?????

[dougtheavenger]

• I recently heard the phrase "full membership" used on NPR with reference to blacks being denied the priesthood. This allowed critics to say blacks were denied "full membership" which I believe is a propaganda ploy. It also obfuscates the fact that specified lineage was and is recognized as a requirement for the Aaraonic/Levitical priesthood by all other Christian and Jewish denominations. Does anyone know if this phrase "full membership" has ever been used by church authorities or members? In other words does it have any legitimacy or is it contrived. I have never heard it used.
  

Edited December 26, 2011 by dougtheavenger

[Storm Rider]

Context is everything. Using the term "full membership" is accurate, but it would not be terminology used very often, if at all, by LDS.

There are several ways to look at this situation. During the time some of our brothers and sisters could not hold the priesthood or attend the temple, many Protestant churches did not even allow blacks to be members of their churches. It would be more even handed for speakers on the topic to take religion as a whole rather than one, very small group.

This is part of our history that was propagated by the leadership of the Church for decades. It exists and cannot be covered up. When looking at the history of Judaism and Christianity it is evident that the priesthood has always been highly restricted to only a specific subset of the population. At no time in the history of true church has the priesthood been so readily available to worthy male members.

[dougtheavenger]

It is not a matter of trying to cover it up but put it in proper perspective. Over 99% of modern Jews can not hold the Aaronic priesthood in their faith because they do not have the required lineage. I think they would regard it as an attack to say they were being denied "full membership". So, if the LDS general authorities do not and have never used the phrase "full membership" for those not holding the priesthood, it is a contrivance for nonmembers to use it.

[why me]

• Does anyone know if this phrase "full membership" has ever been used by church authorities or members? In other words does it have any legitimacy or is it contrived. I have never heard it used.
  

This is not a term that is used by critics very much. Usually they just mention the priesthood ban as a way to get people to believe that blacks were excluded from membership because they were black. I would suppose that full membership is a good way to stress that blacks were allowed membership in the lds church but could not receive the priesthood. However, black woman were welcomed into the relief society and in that way, they had full membership.

In critic circles we never hear about black women being full members of the lds church which I believe they were. We just hear about the priesthood ban and no mention of black women. Why? because the critic wants to make a dishonest point.

[Calm]

There is this one reference to "full membership" being emotionally linked to temple marriage:

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=2&sourceId=81969c84f5d6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[Calm]

Black women could not attend the temple.

[orion88]

The Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual (2004) says, “The great majority

of those who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception to find one of any

other tribe, unless it is of Manasseh. It is Ephraim, today, who holds the priesthood. It is with

Ephraim that the Lord has made covenant and has revealed the fulness of the everlasting

gospel. It is Ephraim who is building temples and performing the ordinances in them for both the

living and for the dead."

http://institute.lds...sp-21-30-24.asp

[why me]

Black women could not attend the temple.

This was true. But many mormons could not attend the temple either. But you would be correct that full membership would not apply to black women either at that time if we consider the ability to go to the temple. And if we correlate full membership with temple attendance, I am also not entitled to the term full membership since I am not temple worthy. And in such cases it may be a devisive term since many saints are not temple worthy. also, I do believe that black males could attend priesthood meeting before the 1978 revelation. They were just denied the priesthood.

Edited December 26, 2011 by why me

[why me]

There is this one reference to "full membership" being emotionally linked to temple marriage:

http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

This would imply that unless one is married in the temple, one is not a full member of the lds church. I don't think that this is meant to be implied since there are many saints who are not married in the temple. I see in the article the fulness of the priesthood but I can't seem to find the term full membership. Can you direct me to that term in the article?

[why me]

I think that we would need a definition of full membership.

Edited December 26, 2011 by why me

[Senator]

So, if the LDS general authorities do not and have never used the phrase "full membership" for those not holding the priesthood, it is a contrivance for nonmembers to use it.

I think it is a fair phrase to be used by outsiders looking in. It's a generally accurate discription of the situation.

[katherine the great]

I think that, in all fairness, it should be pointed out that there is a vast difference between: "One lineage out of many qualifies you for the priesthood", and "All lineages except one can have the priesthood" especially in light of what we now know about genetics. It also is not really fair to compare a person who chooses to exclude themselves from the temple by behavioral choices to one who is excluded because of their ancestry. Any way we look at it, it seems wrong in the world we know today.

[CV75]

The Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual (2004) says, “The great majority

of those who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception to find one of any

other tribe, unless it is of Manasseh. It is Ephraim, today, who holds the priesthood. It is with

Ephraim that the Lord has made covenant and has revealed the fulness of the everlasting

gospel. It is Ephraim who is building temples and performing the ordinances in them for both the

living and for the dead."

http://institute.lds...sp-21-30-24.asp

This link also says:

“By and by the Jews will be gathered to the land of their fathers, and the ten tribes, who wandered into the north, will be gathered home, and the blood of Ephraim, the second son of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt, which is to be found in every kingdom and nation under heaven, will be gathered from among the Gentiles, and the Gentiles who will receive and adhere to the principles of the Gospel will be adopted and initiated into the family of Father Abraham, and Jesus will reign over his own and Satan will reign over his own” (Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, 121–22).

Edited December 26, 2011 by CV75

[katherine the great]

That quote makes me wonder what tribe the majority of African American LDS members are from. I have a sister who is Ethiopian by blood and she was declared from the tribe of Judah.

[CV75]

That quote makes me wonder what tribe the majority of African American LDS members are from. I have a sister who is Ethiopian by blood and she was declared from the tribe of Judah.

Cool--many Ethiopians claim descent from Israelite people accompanying the Queen of Sheba back from her visit with Solomon, or perhaps even descent from her child with Solomon.

(P.S. I think the quote allows room for other tribes to be among the nations of the earth, along with Ephraim.)

Edited December 26, 2011 by CV75

[BCSpace]

I think a lot of people recently, including or especially blacks, have been surprised to find all sorts of European and Asian DNA in their make-up (don't smear that stuff on your face, lol). For example:

http://www.usatoday....americans_x.htm

http://www.pbs.org/w...nterstitialskip

People migrate, are enslaved, and interracially marry.

Edited December 26, 2011 by BCSpace

[katherine the great]

I think a lot of people recently, including or especially blacks, have been surprised to find all sorts of European and Asian DNA in their make-up (don't smear that stuff on your face, lol). For example:

http://www.usatoday....americans_x.htm

http://www.pbs.org/w...nterstitialskip

People migrate, are enslaved, and interracially marry.

Yes. Which makes it equally plausible that many people who think their genetics are lily white possibly have a lineage that leads back to Sub Saharan Africa.

[Calm]

This would imply that unless one is married in the temple, one is not a full member of the lds church. I don't think that this is meant to be implied since there are many saints who are not married in the temple. I see in the article the fulness of the priesthood but I can't seem to find the term full membership. Can you direct me to that term in the article?

I don't think it's doctrine, just a perception that many people have (that "full membership" involves/requires full participation in temple ordinances).

From the link: "I have been a member of the Church most of my life. I was baptized when I was seventeen and was ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood at age twenty-one. While still a young man, I served in many assignments and had many good experiences in the Church that helped me to learn many concepts that were helpful to me in building my faith and testimony. But I never felt that I had completed my full membership in the Church until I took my bride to the temple and received the new and everlasting covenant and the blessings and understanding of the work performed there."

[Libs]

Black women could not attend the temple.

I was told that until fairly recently "unmarried" women (of any race) could not attend Temple.

Not sure if an exception was made for female missionaries? Or, maybe, that's a fairly new program as well? (By "fairly new", I mean within the last 20-25 years or so?)..

[cinepro]

This would imply that unless one is married in the temple, one is not a full member of the lds church. I don't think that this is meant to be implied since there are many saints who are not married in the temple. I see in the article the fulness of the priesthood but I can't seem to find the term full membership. Can you direct me to that term in the article?

Here is what Elder Komatsu says in the article:

President Joseph Fielding Smith further taught: “If you want salvation in the fullest, that is exaltation in the kingdom of God, so that you may become his sons and his daughters, you have got to go to the temple of the Lord and receive these holy ordinances which belong to that house, which cannot be had elsewhere. No man shall receive the fulness of eternity, of exaltation, alone; no woman shall receive that blessing alone; but man and wife, when they receive the sealing power in the temple of the Lord, … shall pass on to exaltation, and shall continue and become like the Lord. And that is the destiny of men; that is what the Lord desires for his children.” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 2:44.)

It is clear, then, that unless we go to the temple of the Lord and receive all the ordinances and obey the commandments, we cannot receive a fulness of priesthood blessings and neither can we receive exaltation. These are wonderful blessings that have been made available to us through temple work.

I have been a member of the Church most of my life. I was baptized when I was seventeen and was ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood at age twenty-one. While still a young man, I served in many assignments and had many good experiences in the Church that helped me to learn many concepts that were helpful to me in building my faith and testimony. But I never felt that I had completed my full membership in the Church until I took my bride to the temple and received the new and everlasting covenant and the blessings and understanding of the work performed there.

[why me]

I was told that until fairly recently "unmarried" women (of any race) could not attend Temple.

Not sure if an exception was made for female missionaries? Or, maybe, that's a fairly new program as well? (By "fairly new", I mean within the last 20-25 years or so?)..

I think that I also remember this from close to 40 years ago. But I also remember that unless one went on a mission, one should wait to go to the temple until one was married. But I can not be sure if my memory is serving me well.

[cinepro]

Yes. Which makes it equally plausible that many people who think their genetics are lily white possibly have a lineage that leads back to Sub Saharan Africa.

Genetics can be quite interesting. For example, Joseph Chang, a statistician, has studied population genetics and suggests the following:

In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang's model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

Now, what are the odds that one or a few of these "common ancestors" were of the same lineage that was forbidden from the priesthood?

As I've said before, I don't believe the priesthood ban came from God not because of any sense of fairness or racial equality, but because a ban based on supposed genealogy wouldn't work after more than a few generations (if it even worked that long). If President Monson stood in conference and said God had told him that people with red hair and freckles couldn't have the priesthood or get their Temple blessings, we would laugh at the absurdity of it all. But for some reason, we nodded our heads and had faith that somehow, God really didn't want people with dark skin and supposed African ancestry to have the priesthood, when it makes just as little sense.

Edited December 27, 2011 by cinepro

[why me]

I don't think it's doctrine, just a perception that many people have (that "full membership" involves/requires full participation in temple ordinances).

From the link: "I have been a member of the Church most of my life. I was baptized when I was seventeen and was ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood at age twenty-one. While still a young man, I served in many assignments and had many good experiences in the Church that helped me to learn many concepts that were helpful to me in building my faith and testimony. But I never felt that I had completed my full membership in the Church until I took my bride to the temple and received the new and everlasting covenant and the blessings and understanding of the work performed there."

No, I don't think that it is doctrine. But it certainly is a recommendation. The problem is: people can take it as doctrine. This wouuld also apply to only marrying a temple worthy person. Many take it as doctrine and not as a recommendation. At times, mormons have difficulties separating recommendations from doctrine when spoken by a GA.

Also, it is difficult to separate ages. A lot of advice about temple marriage is for the young. However, when one is in their fifties and if one is a little lonely, looking for a temple worthy match may be difficult in many parts of the world. There are plenty of good people out there in the church who are not temple worthy or who do not want to go to the temple.

[why me]

• I recently heard the phrase "full membership" used on NPR with reference to blacks being denied the priesthood. This allowed critics to say blacks were denied "full membership" which I believe is a propaganda ploy. It also obfuscates the fact that specified lineage was and is recognized as a requirement for the Aaraonic/Levitical priesthood by all other Christian and Jewish denominations. Does anyone know if this phrase "full membership" has ever been used by church authorities or members? In other words does it have any legitimacy or is it contrived. I have never heard it used.
  

Looking at the idea of full membership, which no one actually provided a definition of, we can see that times have changed. I do remember a time when it was encouraged to go to the temple when one is about to serve a mission or when one is getting married. And someone has a recollection that single women were told to wait. Now I don't know if all this is true but perhaps others can add to it.

And so what is full membership? Maybe it is all in the mind.

[Calm]

Single women (non missionaries) and those married to nonmembers were not only told to wait, they were not allowed to get endowments from what I was told by friends and relatives, there may have been an age limit for single women, but my memory of a great aunt says otherwise.