Lds Blacks And Women…Not He Same Thing In The Priesthood.

[LeSellers]

I believe the phrase denied "the blessings of the Priesthood" is the most frequent (or among them) describing the limitations of that black Africans (both men and women) had before 1978. It was not the Priesthood, per se.

Before 1978, black men of African descent could not hold the Priesthood, and women among them could not attend the Temple, either. Women nowadays, all the while not holding the Priesthood, can attend the Temple because they are not denied "the blessings of the Priesthood" even though they do not hold it anymore than black men once. Women not of black African ancestry have always been able to attendd the Temples of God since Joseph built the first ones in the 1830~40s. They were not denied the blessings of the Priesthood, even though denied holding the Priesthood itself.

Further, as several of us, myself incuded, have pointed out, this denial was exclusively for this lifetime. There never was any restriction on their being ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood or receiving any Temple blessing by proxy. There was not even a field for recording race on the forms used to record their lives in preparation for that work in the Temples of God.

While some may scoff, saying it's all fine to have granted them this blessing after they die, I point out that for us Saints, post-mortality is every bit as real as (and in many respects more important than) this life is. There is no difference between my fifth-great grandfather's receiving his Priesthood and Temple work by proxy and that of a black African's doing so. Both will receive exactly the same blessings as will I, who received these ordinances in vivo.

Lehi

[juliann]

Yeah, right. I don't doubt that you are already quite familiar with the claims made by Wagner in his book, or by Quinn's in his book, and by Lavina Anderson in her paper. In light of your comments, its evident now that LDS apologists dispute or seek to minimize the import of these claims.

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me one bit whether that ever held such rights. I don't harbor any belief that the men who gave or took back, or never gave women any such authorities did so or didn't do so at the direction of God.

I am not familiar with any of that and would sincerely appreciate a quote or paraphrase of the information. Although it may not be relevant to the actual reason, there is certainly no more scriptural basis for a ban on women than on blacks so I don't think analogies are far fetched. (And FYI, LDS apologists are all over the place, in varying degrees, on this)

[juliann]

. There is no difference between my fifth-great grandfather's receiving his Priesthood and Temple work by proxy and that of a black African's doing so.

Lehi

Unless you consider mortality entirely beside the point that is not all together true. I would hope that you losing your priesthood would have a profound effect on your mortal life. It isn't worth much if it wouldn't.

However, I do agree that proxy work has the same binding effect. That still has to be pointed out to those who think that women's proxy sealings to mulitple husbands are not any different than men being sealed to multiple wives so it is good to hear you say this.

[LeSellers]

Unless you consider mortality entirely beside the point that is not all together true. I would hope that you losing your priesthood would have a profound effect on your mortal life. It isn't worth much if it wouldn't.

While true, please see the context of that sentence: it was about post-mortality.

However, I do agree that proxy work has the same binding effect.

This was the whole point. The only time my holding the Preisthood (it's God's Priesthood I'm using here, not my own) makes any difference on earth is when I'm serving someone else. It does me no personal good whatsoever.

Those who hold it can do more than those who do not, in certain situations, but, except as using it makes us become different and "larger" men, the advantages of holding it, contrasted to those who do not, for whatever reason soever, are only like using a lever. We exert the same force but move more massive obstacles. The force we exert, however, being the same as that expended by someone else without that lever, changes us in parallel with the effort, not the movement.

Lehi

[juliann]

While true, please see the context of that sentence: it was about post-mortality.

Uh.....that was the reason for my comment. You are diminishing the priesthood here by saying it doesn't really matter if you have it in mortality.

This was the hole point. The only time my holding the Preisthood (it's God's Priesthood I'm using here, not my own) makes any difference on earth is when I'm serving someone else. It does me no personal good whatsoever.

Those who hold it can do more than those who do not, in certain situations, but, except as using it makes us become different and "larger" men, the advantages of holding it, contrasted to those who do not, for whatever reason soever, are only like using a lever. We exert the same force but move more massive obstacles. The force we exert, however, being the same as that expended by someone else without that lever, changes us in parallel with the effort, not the movement.

It is interesting that whenever we justify withholding something it has to be minimized. Anyone who has spent any time at all in church, especially in General Conference priesthood sessions, knows the emphasis put on the blessing of holding the priesthood. Why marginalize this? I notice you did not respond to your priesthood removed not making a whit of difference to you.

Who knows what will happen with women and priesthood. What we should have learned from sad experience, however, is to never, ever, ever try to talk about something so central and so important as being insignificant. The only appropriate response is that we are told to seek after good things so no woman should ever be denigrated or discouraged from doing that. We lose nothing in giving away so little while being able to uphold the worth of priesthood.

[LeSellers]

Uh.....that was the reason for my comment. You are diminishing the priesthood here by saying it doesn't really matter if you have it in mortality.

Pray then, what advantage does holding the Priesthood grant to those men who hold it?

Lehi

[Nevo]

I am not familiar with any of that and would sincerely appreciate a quote or paraphrase of the information.

Here is a link to Quinn's article, "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843."

[juliann]

Here is a link to Quinn's article, "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843."

Thanks. I just skimmed but it appears that this is mostly what I would consider to be inferred priesthood, you should, you will but no direct ordinance that ever made it equivalent to men which is what I thought I had missed somewhere. The endowment version is still current so I don't find that highly significant.

However, a history of even talking about it so plainly does give some support I would think. Especially when it isn't countered with a tradition of carefully spelled out prohibition. There is certainly more historical support there for women than was ever given for blacks.

LeSellars, you said yourself what priesthood gives so I see no point in debating that the priesthood has no real significance. Even you had to admit: "Those who hold it can do more than those who do not, in certain situations, but, except as using it makes us become different and "larger" men". All I am saying is that is a worthy and admirable thing to experience and desire and no one should be berated for it. In fact, the more I see the defensive, priesthood minimizing reactions to righteous desires the more bizarre it looks. It has a mocking anti-Mormon feel to it. The Brethren have a lot more to say about the priesthood's critical, foundational and life changing importance so if you need more then I suggest the last General Conference Ensign as a reference.

[Pahoran]

Here is a link to Quinn's article, "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843."

Thank you. Quinn makes an impressive argument but, even without being able to check his sources, his argument has a fatal weakness. He writes:

Mormon women already have God’s priesthood of spiritual power. Without asking permission they may draw on the power of the Melchizedek priesthood that is theirs by birthright and by divine endowment. However, it is necessary for endowed women to receive permission of the church to use their priesthood in church settings to administer the sacrament, baptize, confirm, or administer temple ordinances. Without ordination to priesthood offices, each endowed LDS woman already has the opportunity to fulfill in her life the prophet’s promise: “I now turn the key to you in the name of God.”

The weakness is that none of his impressive array of sources report women at any time administering the sacrament, baptising or confirming. The only actual change, once we discard rhetorical flourishes, is that in about 1946, it was decided that healing blessings should be performed only by ordained priesthood holders.

Quinn assumes that the three ordinances highlighted can be performed by any endowed person provided they have "permission." This is an assumption unavailable on the evidence. They have only ever been performed by ordained priesthood holders.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

No, that was never the question. As LDS Church is a religious organization, women have no legal right to "demand or expect" to be ordained to the priesthood.

The question was why aren't women allowed to hold the priesthood.

Because God decreed it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yeah, right. I don't doubt that you are already quite familiar with the claims made by Wagner in his book, or by Quinn's in his book, and by Lavina Anderson in her paper. In light of your comments, its evident now that LDS apologists dispute or seek to minimize the import of these claims.

It was an entirely serious question. And the fact that you apparently don't grasp why I posed it probably explains why you're misapplying the work of the writers you list immediately above.

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me one bit whether that ever held such rights. I don't harbor any belief that the men who gave or took back, or never gave women any such authorities did so or didn't do so at the direction of God.

We understand that, of course. And we wonder, accordingly, why you seem so obsessed with what we do and what we believe.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Yes, it really is.

No one has the "right" to work for my company. They must be qualified, and be offered a position.

If one of the qualifications is that they must be male, then women, who are otherwise qualified, would be denied the right to work at my company.

We are not talking about a job...your argument is semantics. No offense intended.

[LeSellers]

LeSellars,

"Lehi", please. But if you can't bring yourself to that, at least spell "LeSellers" correctly. I know hundreds of Sellerses—many not related to me in any meaningful way, and only two spell the name with an "A", one being Peter Sellars, the famous musician. Of course, they are all wrong.

you said yourself what priesthood gives so I see no point in debating that the priesthood has no real significance. Even you had to admit: "Those who hold it can do more than those who do not, in certain situations, but, except as using it makes us become different and "larger" men".

I have never said, hinted, meant, or implied that the Priesthood is not significant. I have said holding the Priesthood does not do a specific man any identifiable good, for him, personally. The Priesthood does not give him any advantage over another man, all other things being equal. The Priesthood obligates him to serve others, but he cannot use it for himself: no self-healing, no blessings of comfort, no rebuking evil spirits assailing him. He can do all these things (and a myriad of others) for his family, his neighbors, and for strangers, but not for himself.

All I am saying is that is a worthy and admirable thing to experience and desire and no one should be berated for it. In fact, the more I see the defensive, priesthood minimizing reactions to righteous desires the more bizarre it looks. It has a mocking anti-Mormon feel to it. The Brethren have a lot more to say about the priesthood's critical, foundational and life changing importance so if you need more then I suggest the last General Conference Ensign as a reference.

No one can reasonably accuse me of mocking or anti-Mormonism. I hold the holy Priesthood of God in great esteem. The issue is, in my mind, I do not hold it for my own benefit, but for that of those around me.

You imply that those who want the Priesthood (whether for themselves or for others) bestowed on women (or on African blacks in the 60s and 70s) are manifesting "rightesous desires". I point out that the Lord owns the Priesthood; it is His Priesthood and bears His name (in the full, correct title: "The Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God"). Those who presume to pester Him to expand the target audience don't seem too righteous in their desires to me. When He is ready, assuming He will ever be ready, to do so is His own affair, one which I have interest in affecting. He is wiser than I or anyone else on the earth, and knows how to manage His own authority.

Lehi

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Before 1978, black men of African descent could not hold the Priesthood, and women among them could not attend the Temple,

Lehi

Which was a horrible mistake. If this had been policy in 1979 when I joined, I would have not joined.

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

I joined in 1971. It was a problem for a lot of members, me included, but it's not our church to change.

[juliann]

Pa Pa:

I joined in 1971. It was a problem for a lot of members, me included, but it's not our church to change.

I have to disagree with you there. We are to change the church into Zion...and that requires a lot of change. We do that by seeking after good things and desiring righteousness. That, incidently, was the reason the ban was rescinded because there has been no evidence that it was instituted by God and every indication it was not.

[juliann]

For those who haven't looked at a manual or listened to conference in a few decades....

The gift of the priesthood is priceless..... There is nothing else to compare with it in all this world. Safeguard it, treasure it, live worthy of it. http://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/05/priesthood-power?lang=eng

.http://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/lesson-1-the-priesthood?lang=eng

We must first have a desire to develop power in the priesthood. The scriptures teach that men receive from the Lord according to their desires (see Alma 29:4; D&C 4:3; 6:8; 7:1–3).

The Lord also promises that faithful priesthood holders will “become … the elect of God” (D&C 84:34). This means that we priesthood bearers who magnify our callings and enter into all of the sacred saving ordinances of the priesthood will be given the fulness of the Father’s kingdom.

Then the Lord says, “All that my Father hath shall be given unto [them]” (D&C 84:38).

The Lord also promises that faithful priesthood holders will “become … the elect of God” (D&C 84:34). This means that we priesthood bearers who magnify our callings and enter into all of the sacred saving ordinances of the priesthood will be given the fulness of the Father’s kingdom.

Then the Lord says, “All that my Father hath shall be given unto [them]” (D&C 84:38).

President Spencer W. Kimball explained: “Have you ever stopped to [count] the blessings, the powers that the Lord has? All power, all influence, all strength will be yours, and this is according to the oath and covenant of the holy priesthood which you bear” (in Conference Report, Buenos Aires Area Conference 1975, 51).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have to disagree with you there. We are to change the church into Zion...and that requires a lot of change. We do that by seeking after good things and desiring righteousness. That, incidently, was the reason the ban was rescinded because there has been no evidence that it was instituted by God and every indication it was not.

I don't mind you disagreeing...but it was wrong.

[BCSpace]

That, incidently, was the reason the ban was rescinded becausethere has been no evidence that it was instituted by God and every indication it was not.

CFR the reason was because there has been no evidence and no indiction.

[thesometimesaint]

Juliann:

Last time I looked my name wasn't on the Ward buildings.

[cinepro]

Juliann:

Last time I looked my name wasn't on the Ward buildings.

If you're a part of the church, then you are named.

[juliann]

CFR the reason was because there has been no evidence and no indiction.

It is kind of impossible to document NO evidence. A revelation, scripture, or dated and documented First Presidency pronouncement that the priesthood was to henceforth be withheld from those deemed to have black African lineage would be necessary to claim that God did it. "Joseph told me...." just isn't adequate anymore no are after the fact statements. There is nothing left to justify an undated ban once we were told to stop perpetuating well intended but very damaging reasons created for it in lieu of a revelation, scripture or pronouncement.

[juliann]

Juliann:

Last time I looked my name wasn't on the Ward buildings.

Probably shouldn't ask but why are you looking for your name on Ward buildings? It would likely be considered graffitti and be painted over.

[Peppermint Patty]

I have to disagree with you there. We are to change the church into Zion...and that requires a lot of change. We do that by seeking after good things and desiring righteousness. That, incidently, was the reason the ban was rescinded because there has been no evidence that it was instituted by God and every indication it was not.

+1, Juliann. I have to agree 100% with you.

The Church is not perfect, and anyone who tells you otherwise is not being truthful. The truth is, the Church is run by imperfect people with prejudices, culture, and beliefs that are not always in line with the Gospel.

We all have an obligation to change the "Church into Zion". There is much work left to do still.

[BCSpace]

It is kind of impossible to document NO evidence.

But there isn't "no evidence". OD 2 itself is an admission by the Church that they believe the ban was instituted by God (as was the official doctrine prior) else why would it take a revelation to begin the promised blessings? And if you read today's explainations by the GA's, notice how careful they are not to imply that the ban was a mistake or that the GA's and prophets of that time were in error. No evidence of an initial revelation is needed to prove that, according to the LDS Church then and now, the ban was instituted by God.