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

[Pahoran]

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.

I don't actually agree with Juliann on this point, but I think you may be oversimplifying here.

Everything has "something" to do with God, if only in that God does not immediately step in and set the world to rights. To that extent, even the fact that my neighbour was recently robbed has "something" to do with God. In that case, it was simply that God did not miraculously intervene.

In the case of the former Priesthood ban, there are a number of possiblities. It may be that, late in Joseph's life, he received a revelation to the effect that the ban, as it was maintained until 1978, was the Lord's will. It may be that something or other was revealed to Joseph that was intended to be for a limited duration (say, the period of the Church's sojourn in Missouri, or until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution) but that it was not rescinded at the proper time simply due to conservatism and/or institutional inertia; or it may indeed be that nothing was revealed to Joseph at all, and that the ban arose from a misunderstanding about something he said and was reported long after.

I don't know if there is a definitive answer to that question. But I do know that the 1978 revelation was absolutely inspired, that it was the Lord's will revealed through His prophet, and that I fully expect not to see anything more important than that happen in the Church in my lifetime.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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

Given that President Hinckley didn't have a mean-spirited bone in his body, I am absolutely confident that he was counselling the living, not rebuking the dead.

And I read Lehi's analogy as merely an analogy, not a judgement against any person. Allowing analogies to control the discussion is a trap we should always avoid.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BlueDreams]

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.

The analogy doesn't work for me on a number of levels:

1.) the priesthood is not a deadly weapon. Giving the priesthood to a black man is not equivalent to handing a loaded rifle to a 10 yr old.

2.) It assumes a lack of readiness on some part. If the black person, I don't think that really holds weight. How in the world was it that a people who were certifiably racist and sexist by our standards, heavily class divided and power oriented, and were far removed from the Lord's standard of relationships between His children more ready for the priesthood in the first place? It's not exactly God's style to go and reward the ruling class. If it's the white people who weren't ready.....it doesn't fit your analogy of the gun or blade saw, because in this scenerio the unprepared were handed the blade saw. Besides, if either side was so unready...why didn't God see that in the first place and ban someone from the get go, when the priesthood was brought onto the earth.

3.) The idea of "complaining" does not fit the scenerio of the priesthood. Imagine if you were excited to go to the temple, you had your current recommend, and you were morally prepared to go through...then someone stopped you at the door and said, no. Wouldn't you wonder why and how this happened? (This scenerio represent the early black saints who lived through the revoking of priesthood blessings). Imagine you've now found deep and beautiful truths and your greatest desire is to learn more and receive further light and knowledge because you know that it'll bring you peace...so you mail a letter pleading to understand more of the Lord's truth to a prophet of the Lord but you can't (this represents the pre-saints in africa). Do either of these scenerios really fit into the idea of "complaining?"

As for the rest of the post, I have a problem with the word needed. The horror that comes from such situations is not built by God, but by the corrupt practices of men. No one needs to be thrown into the middle of the corruption and sinfullness and degredation built from "the great and abominable church." But I do believe our place on earth was agreed to. I can't imagine Heavenly Father, sitting up there with two of his children and saying: you, my little precious child. I believe that you need to have the blessings of heaven in this mortal life (unlike the vast majority of the other kids)" And then subsequently turn to His other blessed child "You child of mine, you do not need the blessings of heaven in this life directly in your life. You'll be just fine without it anyways."

Needed is one thing, necessary is another. It is necessary that we come to this Earth. Some are given difficult challenges that will litterally kill them. Some that will eat our souls and bring unspeakable sorrow and pain. No one needs to die from starvation and sleep on the ground or live without the priesthood when they're quite worthy for it in heart. But often children must necessarily be placed in awful circumstances. I, personally, would imagine the Lord sitting with His child from 1897 and telling him: "You will be hated because of who you are. Because of the wickedness of men, you will be denied many blessings that you have here. It will be discouraging and painful and at times you will feel alone. But it is necessary for you to come into mortality and if you are faithful these trials will teach you much about your Savior. Your pain can bind Him close to you. Will you accept this call?"

I don't think the priesthood was an edict from God. I think it was a manifestation of the faults and prejudices of mankind in that time.

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

And I read Lehi's analogy as merely an analogy, not a judgement against any person. Allowing analogies to control the discussion is a trap we should always avoid.

Though I'm sure LeSellers meant it as merely an analogy. Its implications are awful and frankly a little offensive. And I don't easily take offense. Ever. At best the analogy is just extremely short-sighted. Forgive me if I don't see why my dad needed to eat rat and hide from bombs as a child to fulfill God's plan of salvation. Or how the priesthood ban can be reduced to gun safety for a child who's complaining because he can't handle a big tool.

With luv,

BD

[Nevo]

...not rescinded at the proper time simply due to conservatism and/or institutional inertia...

Whatever the origins of the ban (which I suspect was prompted by Brigham Young's fear of miscegenation), I think "conservatism and/or institutional inertia" had a lot to do with why it lasted for so long.

[KevinG]

I have long understood the Prophets looking forward to the day that the priesthood was retored to all mankind being more of a matter of God's children being ready for it more than God being ready for it.

If the Saints were not a part of the broader culture, if the Saints were more willing to shed non-doctrinal traditions, if the Saints were less put upon for their other abolitionist beliefs, if the Saints weren't struggling with polygamy vs. the law of the land, if the Saints were not forced to relocate their entire nation multiple times in the first generation of the church, if the Saints had not brought in some protestant mythos into their beliefs system... if... if... if...

They might have been more like the Quakers and integrated 100 years earlier. But we didn't. And we had justifications for it. But in 1978 we were ready to receive further light and knowledge and any speculation as to why we did not ordain blacks was no longer valid or needed.

I rejoice that we have a God revealed doctrine that clearly spells out we do not discriminate and that the church was ready to accept it without schism. That should be our doctrine and understanding and nothing else. Trying to explain "why" when we don't have doctrinal reasons in the first place is like trying to justify why we lived in the dark before the lights were turned on.

[why me]

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.

It would be interesting if such a policy would have been in place if the early mormons were not persecuted. I think that persecution had much to do with the ban. I also think that if the church would have let blacks keep the priesthood, the white protestant americans would have had another whipping topic to persecute the mormons. We need to use our imagination of white protestant america seeing two mormons one white and one black being married in the temple for all eternity. I think that the outrage would have been severe from the locals. Would the lds church have survived if the ban was not in place? And then when polygamy was instituted in force, would white america tolerate a black man with 3 white wives all married in the temple for eternity? Would they tolerate this kind of policy in the 1840's? I can certainly see mass extermination with such a policy in place from our Missouri friends.

[why me]

. Trying to explain "why" when we don't have doctrinal reasons in the first place is like trying to justify why we lived in the dark before the lights were turned on.

I believe that it was one of preservation. As I said to Juliann, I don't think that protestant white america was ready for a black man to have 2 0r 3 white wives, married in the temple for eternity. Nor were they ready for a black man to marry a white woman for eternity during Brigham's time and long after brigham's time. Would the church have survived?

[Calm]

We need to use our imagination of white protestant america seeing two mormons one white and one black being married in the temple for all eternity.

How is this any 'worse' than any other form of marriage to someone of that 'persuasion'?

Would the lds church have survived if the ban was not in place?

There were very few blacks in Utah in comparison and a law forbidding intermarriage would have been sufficient. One wouldn't have to go to the extreme of removing the priesthood especially since the priesthood is independent of marriage.

[why me]

How is this any 'worse' than any other form of marriage to someone of that 'persuasion'?

There were very few blacks in Utah in comparison and a law forbidding intermarriage would have been sufficient. One wouldn't have to go to the extreme of removing the priesthood especially since the priesthood is independent of marriage.

http://mormonstories...eldspriesthood/

Go to the Black Pete Ordained section of the podcast and get back to me.

[thesometimesaint]

Juliann:

The point is we don't know why. It COULD be that it was a test to see if we will do whatsoever the Lord our God will command us with a willing heart.

[Calm]

http://mormonstories...eldspriesthood/

Go to the Black Pete Ordained section of the podcast and get back to me.

I am not asking the podcast, I am asking you.

At this point I can't watch the podcast due to technical issues. I have no interest in making the effort to watch podcasts unless given more motivation on what I will find. Does it simply state that blacks were ordained? I am aware of that. Does it talk about trouble that arose when a black man married a white woman or attempted to engage in polygamy with white women? I am aware of the McCary incident. Have read extensively on the history of LDS blacks. It wasn't just Protestant White Americans that weren't too happy about interracial marriage.

Does it state anywhere that nonLDS would be more offended by interracial temple marriage than interracial nontemple marriage? (Or that LDS wouldn't have been significantly offended by such?) That is the point I was pointing out. Unless the commentary deals specifically with that, it is a waste of my time. If the problem with the priesthood was only concern for interracial marriage, whether in the temple or not, plural or not, that could have been dealt with solely by establishing church policy refusing to solemnize interracial marriages. There was no need to completely exclude from the Priesthood all blacks to prevent interracial marriages. It's not as if even with a temple recommend, anyone can just walk in and demand to be married to someone. Still has to go through an approval process. Just as certain marriages are refused to be performed in the Church today, it could have been done then.

Fear of reaction to interracial marriages cannot logically be given as the primary reason for the priesthood ban, especially since Utah had laws in place to block those marriages already. Considering the proportion of black intraracial marriages to interracial marriages, it seems ridiculous to deny the large number of the former to prevent the possibility of the very few latter cases even if it had not been against the law and was only up to the Church to decide. Banning the Priesthood to blacks would have not prevented interracial marriages (since there were plenty of nonpriesthood holders getting married to LDS women at the time), only temple interracial marriages and unless you can demonstrate that the first was okay with LDS and nonLDS, but the second was not...it does not work as a reason for the ban.

[Calm]

Juliann:

The point is we don't know why. It COULD be that it was a test to see if we will do whatsoever the Lord our God will command us with a willing heart.

And it COULD be because God didn't want us to worry about the greater amount of paperwork involved until more efficient means came along to keep track of all those additional men who would have had the Priesthood given them if there had been no ban. Or it COULD be that our leaders misunderstood what God wanted because they weren't so spiritually worthy or humble enough to truly listen to God and actually they weren't the ones who were supposed to get the Priesthood in the first place and instead it was to be passed solely into the hands of black men, who due to their humility and experience serving others would be the ideal leaders for a Church so focused on coming to God in humility and gratitude for his blessings and service to others....because after all that is what the Priesthood is all about...service, no personal significant benefits attached right? Thus God allowed slavery in order to prepare blacks to be most effective leaders of the Church, the only problem was the whites didn't get out of the way when they were supposed to....could have been!

If we don't know why, then why bother making up reasons to explain it? Why not just leave it at "don't know why"?

[why me]

I am not asking the podcast, I am asking you.

At this point I can't watch the podcast due to technical issues. I have no interest in making the effort to watch podcasts unless given more motivation on what I will find. Does it simply state that blacks were ordained? I am aware of that. Does it talk about trouble that arose when a black man married a white woman or attempted to engage in polygamy with white women? I am aware of the McCary incident. Have read extensively on the history of LDS blacks. It wasn't just Protestant White Americans that weren't too happy about interracial marriage.

Does it state anywhere that nonLDS would be more offended by interracial temple marriage than interracial nontemple marriage? (Or that LDS wouldn't have been significantly offended by such?) That is the point I was pointing out. Unless the commentary deals specifically with that, it is a waste of my time. If the problem with the priesthood was only concern for interracial marriage, whether in the temple or not, plural or not, that could have been dealt with solely by establishing church policy refusing to solemnize interracial marriages. There was no need to completely exclude from the Priesthood all blacks to prevent interracial marriages. It's not as if even with a temple recommend, anyone can just walk in and demand to be married to someone. Still has to go through an approval process. Just as certain marriages are refused to be performed in the Church today, it could have been done then.

Fear of reaction to interracial marriages cannot logically be given as the primary reason for the priesthood ban, especially since Utah had laws in place to block those marriages already. Considering the proportion of black intraracial marriages to interracial marriages, it seems ridiculous to deny the large number of the former to prevent the possibility of the very few latter cases even if it had not been against the law and was only up to the Church to decide. Banning the Priesthood to blacks would have not prevented interracial marriages (since there were plenty of nonpriesthood holders getting married to LDS women at the time), only temple interracial marriages and unless you can demonstrate that the first was okay with LDS and nonLDS, but the second was not...it does not work as a reason for the ban.

It goes into the historical circumstances about what it was instituted. To have 'Black Pete' take it upon himself to use polygamy to have relations with white women upset the apple cart and the misgivings about blacks and the priesthood seemed to have begun then. It then goes into slavery and the conversion of a certain slave owner who brought his slaves to utah etc. I think that it gives a pretty good picture of what was going on at that time from a historical perspective. And I do believe that having black men marrying many white women would have upset the whites in the neighboring communities. The unintended consequences would be hard to speculate on but a violent reaction was definitely a possbility.

[why me]

If we don't know why, then why bother making up reasons to explain it? Why not just leave it at "don't know why"?

It may be based on historical conditioning which would be an important reason. And to the survival of the lds church.

[Calm]

And I do believe that having black men marrying many white women would have upset the whites in the neighboring communities. The unintended consequences would be hard to speculate on but a violent reaction was definitely a possbility.

totally agreed, but this seems to have little to do with the Priesthood itself since it could be handled as it was by making interracial marriages illegal as well as banning interracial marriages themselves in the temple, rather than banning all blacks of AA ancestry not only from the temple, but from the Aaronic Priesthood as well.

[Calm]

It may be based on historical conditioning which would be an important reason. And to the survival of the lds church.

But as long as all we can say is "may be" or "could be" than how can anything be pointed to as definitely relevant.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

+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.

Agreed but thankfully we had to courage to overcome these things.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

It could be any one of a hundred, or more reasons, but as God seems to like to try his people. I'll stick with my speculation thank you.

[juliann]

We need to bury any implication that we would ever think that God held white people in such esteem that he would advance one group's interest over another. The idea that millions of righteous people were held back in their mortal probation because white people weren't ready, i.e., righteous, brings charges of racism against the church( as well as creating a God that not only creates evil but supports it.)

This comes from Marvin Perkins Co-Chair, Genesis Public Affairs Southern California Genesis Mission Leader

In 1988 Elder Dallin H. Oaks, also of the Quorum of the Twelve, gave an interview to the Associated Press. And this is what hesaid in the interview:

"...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we are on our own. "

"Some people put reason to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that...."

I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and elaborated upon by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking..."

"Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man‑made to a great extent."

Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report, April 1966, p.119

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches the universality of God's concern for men and that obedience is a universal and fundamental law of progress, both temporal and spiritual. The aristocracy of righteousness is the only aristocracy that God recognizes. This leaves no room for self-righteous expressions in words or actions of being "holier than thou." There is a real unity in the human race, and all men have a right to equal consideration as human beings, regardless of their race, creed, or color.

For any church, country, nation, or other group to believe that it is the only people in whom God is interested or that it has special merit because of color, race, or belief, that they are inherently superior and loved by God without regard to the lives they live, is not only a great and dangerous fallacy but is a continuing barrier to peace. This is demoralizing, whether it is the exploded and presumptuous myth of an Aryan race of supermen or disguised in more subtle forms. Let us steadfastly avoid such demoralizing arrogance.

[frankenstein]

i am all for not making up reasons. The worst things I heard as a missionary, were other missionaries telling investigators made up reasons for this or that. We loose the divinity of the Gospel when we make up reasons for why things happen as things happen within the Church.

One thing, we do know for a Doctrinal fact, is why the ban was rescinded, Official Declaration 2 gives us those reasons and there are 3 reasons the ban was rescinded:

1. Past prophets spoke of the day when the ban would be rescinded.

2. In 1978, the current prophets sought the will of the Lord concerning the ban.

3. The promised day of permitting all worthy males to be ordained to the Priesthood had arrived.

anything beyond these 3 reasons is a man made and is not supported by the Official Doctrine of the LDS Church.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It would be interesting if such a policy would have been in place if the early mormons were not persecuted. I think that persecution had much to do with the ban. I also think that if the church would have let blacks keep the priesthood, the white protestant americans would have had another whipping topic to persecute the mormons.

That would not excuse it, we were not being persecuted by Southern Churches.

[LeSellers]

That would not excuse it, we were not being persecuted by Southern Churches.

You might remind Parley P. Pratt of that when you see him next.

Lehi

[Calm]

calmoriah:

It could be any one of a hundred, or more reasons, but as God seems to like to try his people. I'll stick with my speculation thank you.

I have no problem if someone chooses to believe something caused the ban...I have my own ideas, I just see it getting problematic whenever speculation gets presented as a likelihood and even worse as a fact (as I see from time to time though rarely on this board.)

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

No problem. I've never said that my speculation was anything but personal speculation. Personally I'd love to have the answer, but that's probably not going to happen in my lifetime.