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

[frankenstein]

OD2 is very clear. Past prophets spoke of a promised day, currents prophets suplicated God on the behalf of those who were withheld the priesthood, and finally, the promised day arrived.

To contrive another reason is to deny the prophets and teachings of the church. It is a real shame how much of the Gospel gets abandoned by those who conjure up their own reasons for this or that.

[thesometimesaint]

Juliann:

Exactly. It isn't my church. I am a member of the Lords Church. He makes the rules, and it is my job to try to live up to them.

[why me]

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 That, incidently, was the reason the ban was rescinded because there has been no evidence that it was instituted by God and every indication it was not.

Have you listened to the podcast on mormonstories about blacks and the priesthood? I think that you should listen to it if you haven't.

I think that the issue will become more clear.

http://mormonstories...eldspriesthood/ If this link does not work, one can go here:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=83

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Juliann:

Exactly. It isn't my church. I am a member of the Lords Church. He makes the rules, and it is my job to try to live up to them.

I have made it mine...thought I guess I will always be a cultural Baptist. but in belief all Mormon. This does allow my leaders to be mistaken on some things.

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

I allow our mortal leaders to have all the faults and foibles common to man. Jesus the Christ doesn't have those problems. I was agnostic before joining the Church.

[frankenstein]

since it seems making up a reason for the end of the Priesthood ban is acceptable, I will offer my made up reason - which does not contradict Church teachings or the Prophets and is based in the current events of the time of the ban.

By 1978 Bob Jones University - a tax exempt organization - was involved in legal battles with the IRS. The IRS had revoked the tax exempt status of the University because of the Universities racist admission and student conduct policies. By 1978 the writing was on the wall, so the Leaders of the Church sought guidance on ending the ban.

[frankenstein]

blast! double post.

[Nevo]

OD2 is very clear...

I don't know. I'm inclined to think that God would be less racist than certain nineteenth-century leaders of the Church, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he really did have it in for black Africans and only changed his mind in 1978.

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

No hand writing there. Neither LDS nor BYU has ever based membership or acceptance on race.

[LeSellers]

I don't know. I'm inclined to think that God would be less racist than certain nineteenth-century leaders of the Church, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he really did have it in for black Africans and only changed his mind in 1978.

"Racism" is a XX construct. No one in 1850 had any idea what this term would have meant, had he heard it. The fact that being labeled a racist in 2012 is tantamount to being banished from one's society makes me think that the label is much less about discussing ideas than it is about destroying ideas, both the ideas and the people who think them.

To advance this, or any other theory regarding the underpinnings of the priesthood "ban" walks perilously close to the edge. Neither you nor I (who believe it was implemented by God if for no other reason than that He did not overturn it—a practice He used for other things) know what God knows, nor what values He applies to respond to a given situation.

Lehi

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

There is a lot of it...it just all sounds bad.

[juliann]

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.

With that logic, every revelation was put into place to correct what God had originally commanded. That is nonsensical. Current explanations are honest...and telling... because it has consistently been along the lines of "we don't know" as they removed all the former justifications. Carefully worded does not work in your favor because they are carefully wording it to not say God told anyone to do it. Pres. McKay is on record as thinking it was merely a policy. With no revelation and no declaration and no support from current leaders, anyone who wants to lay this at the feet of God has the burden of proof.

Why Me: Have you listened to the podcast on mormonstories about blacks and the priesthood? I think that you should listen to it if you haven't.

Yes. We have had them all speak at FAIR conferences more than once. Darius and Margaret's award winning Nobody Knows is also a must see. The Documentary Channel has been running it. FAIR's BlackLDS.org is also a great resource.

[Nevo]

Neither you nor I (who believe it was implemented by God if for no other reason than that He did not overturn it—a practice He used for other things) know what God knows, nor what values He applies to respond to a given situation.

That is a fair comment. Only God knows why the ban was instituted and/or allowed to exist. However, it is my opinion that the ban was a mistake, instituted and perpetuated by good but fallible men who erroneously believed that the scriptures warranted withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent. God, as far as I know, loves Africans as well as he loves Fijians, Danes, Turks, Koreans, and all the rest.

[thesometimesaint]

Nevo:

For all we know the ban was instituted by God as a test for white members of the Church.

[juliann]

Nevo:

For all we know the ban was instituted by God as a test for white members of the Church.

What was the test? What are white people? More to the point, hasn't more than one of our modern leaders told us that rationalizations have been spectacularly wrong? Pres. Hinckley is quoted in Nobody Knows as having personally apologized to Pastor Chip Murray of the AME for anything the Church contributed towards hurting African Americans.... which kind of throws God under the bus if he did the whole thing to advance white folks.

[LeSellers]

That is a fair comment. Only God knows why the ban was instituted and/or allowed to exist. However, it is my opinion that the ban was a mistake, instituted and perpetuated by fallible men who erroneously believed that the scriptures warranted withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent. God, as far as I know, loves Africans as well as he loves Fijians, Danes, Turks, Koreans, and all the rest.

I have two very powerful wood saws. I do not use the blade guards all the time because they are inappropriate for some cuts, and in some cases, the cut would be impossible. About ten months ago, I cut one of my fingers and had to wear a bandage for more than a month and now have a new fingerprint.

Some of our grandsons have come over to use the saws. I do not let them. They are not prepared for it. I (or their fathers) make the desired cuts as a service to them. I do this because I love them.

It's very much the same thing with hand guns: when I get one (or more), I will train them long before I let them fire the pistols because I love them. they may complain that they are ready, but it's my job to assure they are before allowing them to use potentially fatal tools, like guns or saws. Those of our children who already have hand guns follow the same principles.

There will come a time when each will be ready to cut lumber or shoot targets (or evil-doers), but that time is not yet. They must wait. In the meantime, they complain that they are ready now. They don't understand the reasons we have for denying them what they want.

We do not know why God sent some of His children to be born in Africa in the x or USmerica in the XIX. One would probably suffer a great deal of illness, pain, hunger, and other afflictions, while the other child luxuriates with abundant food, warm or cool housing, and a hospital next door. But I have reached the conclusion that it is because the one needed the set of experiences his condition would provide him, and the other needed the set of experiences his condition would provide him. (I may have that backward.) In both cases, the personal traits, needs, and desires were carefully matched with the conditions and challenges and we have no basis for judging that the one was "rewarded" and the other "punished" based on those conditions of birth.

I was born in Salt Lake City in the first half of the XX. Was that because I was a "great and noble one", or was it because I was so weak that without the Gospel's surrounding me, I'd never have made the required changes in my being otherwise?

Did that x black man need so many limitations because he'd have been too righteous in my LDS environment? Who knows (aside from Father)?

Just so, if a black Saint in 1897 was denied the Priesthood based on his lineage, I must surmise that God knew (even in the extremely unlikely case that He did not institute the "ban") this son would not receive the Priesthood in this life. That means He sent this spirit child into the very condition that was best for him. I don't have the least idea of the values and trade-offs Father weighs as He dispatches one child to Kinshasa and another to Provo, but I am convinced He loves "Africans... Fijians, Danes, Turks, Koreans, and all the rest" as perfectly as only He can. Thus, the ban, irrespective of its origins, worked out for the best in every case because God chose for us, individually, our conditions of birth and life.

Lehi

[JDave]

But I have reached the conclusion that it is because the one needed the set of experiences his condition would provide him, and the other needed the set of experiences his condition would provide him. (I may have that backward.) In both cases, the personal traits, needs, and desires were carefully matched with the conditions and challenges and we have no basis for judging that the one was "rewarded" and the other "punished" based on those conditions of birth

Just so, if a black Saint in 1897 was denied the Priesthood based on his lineage, I must surmise that God knew (even in the extremely unlikely case that He did not institute the "ban") this son would not receive the Priesthood in this life. That means He sent this spirit child into the very condition that was best for him. I don't have the least idea of the values and trade-offs Father weighs as He dispatches one child to Kinshasa and another to Provo, but I am convinced He loves "Africans... Fijians, Danes, Turks, Koreans, and all the rest" as perfectly as only He can. Thus, the ban, irrespective of its origins, worked out for the best in every case because God chose for us, individually, our conditions of birth and life.

Your conclusion that such is the case is not based on any teaching I have heard from church leaders. Point me to the location if such has been taught. Is it any less likely that God sent us into conditions that are sufficient for us, rather than optimal? Arguing that every human being was sent into conditions that are optimal for them runs into some difficult to explain cases. Granted they are only difficult to explain for us, you might argue, but then there is the simple mathematical difficulty of optimizing an equation of billions or trillions of complex, interacting variables such that nobody has a less than optimal experience.

It seems unnecessary to argue that every item that seems on its face to be detrimental must be harmonized with some "greater good" that God is effecting in people's lives. We know that mortal life brings with it a fallen nature of mankind as well as random tragedies that simply happen. Our reaction to them may work for our benefit, but that is quite different than saying that God sent every single horrible tragedy that has ever occurred.

[frankenstein]

With that logic, every revelation was put into place to correct what God had originally commanded. That is nonsensical. Current explanations are honest...and telling... because it has consistently been along the lines of "we don't know" as they removed all the former justifications. Carefully worded does not work in your favor because they are carefully wording it to not say God told anyone to do it. Pres. McKay is on record as thinking it was merely a policy. With no revelation and no declaration and no support from current leaders, anyone who wants to lay this at the feet of God has the burden of proof.

have you read Official Declaration 2?

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood,..

-------

Is it your position then, that Prophets who made reference of a promised day, were just speaking as men and not by revelation?

[Calm]

Your conclusion that such is the case is not based on any teaching I have heard from church leaders. Point me to the location if such has been taught. Is it any less likely that God sent us into conditions that are sufficient for us, rather than optimal? Arguing that every human being was sent into conditions that are optimal for them runs into some difficult to explain cases. Granted they are only difficult to explain for us, you might argue, but then there is the simple mathematical difficulty of optimizing a variable of billions or trillions of complex, interacting variables such that nobody has a less than optimal experience. It seems unnecessary to argue that every item that seems on its face to be detrimental must be harmonized with some "greater good" that God is effecting in people's lives. We know that mortal life brings with it a fallen nature of mankind as well as random tragedies that simply happen. Our reaction to them may work for our benefit, but that is quite different than saying that God sent every single horrible tragedy that has ever occurred.

Out of points so

[juliann]

have you read Official Declaration 2?

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood,..

-------

This is an excellent example of careful wording that leaves God out of it..... other than to confirm a policy put in place by prophets and Presidents that did not fulfill God's eternal plan should be discontinued.

[juliann]

There will come a time when each will be ready to cut lumber or shoot targets (or evil-doers), but that time is not yet. They must wait. In the meantime, they complain that they are ready now. They don't understand the reasons we have for denying them what they want.

I think we need to put aside such comments considering Pres. Hinckley's caution in the April 2006 Conference:

How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume

that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous

life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

[LeSellers]

I think we need to put aside such comments considering Pres. Hinckley's caution in the April 2006 Conference:

I think you're looking for problems. I never said anything about who's worthy and who isn't.

And I am on the record as saying I was among those who were unexpectedly pleased with the Jun 1978 announcement, even though I only heard it on Armed Forces Radio and questioned its authenticity until the next day in Sacrament Meeting.

Lehi

[Nevo]

But I have reached the conclusion that it is because the one needed the set of experiences his condition would provide him, and the other needed the set of experiences his condition would provide him. (I may have that backward.) In both cases, the personal traits, needs, and desires were carefully matched with the conditions and challenges....

It is difficult to imagine this being true of every mortal experience. Do East African children need to die of starvation? Does anyone need to be raped as part of their mortal probation? I rather doubt it. Those are just things that come with the territory, living as we do in a fallen world. I don't think God arranges for injustices to befall us. Therefore, I am skeptical that a mysterious Providence required that faithful black Latter-day Saints be denied the priesthood before 1978 for their own good.

[frankenstein]

This is an excellent example of careful wording that leaves God out of it..... other than to confirm a policy put in place by prophets and Presidents that did not fulfill God's eternal plan should be discontinued.

God is specifically mention, prophets spoke of a day in God's eternal plan, that God would say now ordain all worthy males. You are appraoching the point to were the only reason for the ban was racism plain and simple.

[frankenstein]

If it was in God's plan to someday permit the priesthood ordination of all worthy males and presumably that day is the day mentioned in OD2 then what is a non God reason for priesthood ban.

Pre OD2, a descendant of Cain/ham is asking his bishop about being ordained to priesthood, he is told the promised day of all worthy males being ordained has not arrived. He then asks So the current ban is in place because of God, the Bishop responds No, the current ban is not because of God'plan the current ban is because because uh.....the current ban is because we do not know why, but we do know it is not because of anything God has instructed.

The descendant of Cain/ham responds Ok, let me get this correct, it is God's plan that someday all worthy males will be ordained and that day has not arrived, but it is not Gods doing that, I, a worthy male, can not be ordained.

The bishop responds, Yes, we know it is not of God that you can not be ordained, but we do know that it is of God that someday you can be ordained.

If the ban had nothing to do with God, then OD2, being doctrine, is partial a lie.

If OD2 is completely true, then the ban has something to do with God.