The Priesthood Ban Is Still Official Doctrine Of The Lds Church

[Bernard Gui]

IMO, if done honestly and sincerely, it will not cause mortal harm to the church to admit that our previous leaders had racist views. Nephi was racist. So was Peter. Why should it be any harder to admit that Brigham was too?

Why stop there? A scriptural case could be made that God is racist, too.

The "we don't know" reply is an honest response, not a response out of shame, fear, or

intentional ignorance.

Bernard

[BCSpace]

I have no problem with any of that. I know the doctrine is not racist nor was it ever. I am not racist, nor do I harbor any racist tendencies. I know that many critics of the Church do their level best to portray it as racism and even some members of the Church believe it is racism and was wrong.

If the doctrine wasn't "racist", then what was it?

Does it have to be anything?

In other words, please describe it to me without using race as the sole determining factor.

You're asking the wrong questions. Which came first in LDS theology, the cause of the ban or skin color? The correct answer to this question shows that skin color has nothing to do with the ban. It was NEVER said, your skin is black, therefore you can't have the priesthood.

[dougtheavenger]

Of course the ban was racist. It was the definition of racist. It was restricted by the understanding of race at the time.

Wrong. Racism has two definition that were formerly divided between RACISM and RACIALISM

1. A system of belief in which race, culture and civilzation are linked with race or biological determinism being the underlying causal factor.

2. Perniscious racial discrimination. (Nelson Mandela's inauguration speech)

All racial discrimination is not racism and if it were butterflies, squirrels, salamanders and probably all sexually reproducing creatures would be racist.

[Buckeye]

Why stop there? A scriptural case could be made that God is racist, too.

The "we don't know" reply is an honest response, not a response out of shame, fear, or

intentional ignorance.

Bernard

Then be my guest to make the scriptural case. I don't see it. God is not racist. He is perfect. His servants, however, embody all manner of wrongs, including racism. Therefore, when looking for a reason for the ban, Brigham's racism is an option; God's isn't.

"I don't know" can be a perfectly honest answer. In fact, I fully admit that I don't know. But that answer is not enough for me and many others. I want to know. Investigators want to know. My neighbors want to know. Voters looking at Romney want to know. And so far, the best reason I've found is racism. If you have a better one, please share because I'd love to be wrong. But don't take too much time. If Romney is the nominee, this will be a huge issue by year's end. We better start telling our story or others will.

Do you really want Krakauer to be the one explaining this on the 10 o'clock news? I'd much prefer a general authority, or at least Bushman or Givens. "I don't know" may have been a fine story since 1978. But it can't be the story going forward.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Buckeye

[orion88]

I was working for the Daily Universe at the time, and we put out an "extra" edition that day. I still have a copy. Huge banner headlines declared "Blacks Get Priesthood."

Would it be possible to view that online somehow? Sure beats the hearsay that I

heard.

Thanks.

[why me]

It was probably "racist" of God to choose Shem over Ham and Japeth, to give Shem the birthright over his older brother, and to promise that Abraham would be the means by which all the earth would be blessed. But I am unconvinced that "racism' is a bad thing, in spite of the loose way many people use the term. Well, maybe because of the loose way many use it. I'll gladly be "racist" in the way God is, and take pride in being in such unimaginable company.

Lehi

Can we claim that Christs ministry was also racist since he preached among a certain group of people to the exclusion of others?

[why me]

Why stop there? A scriptural case could be made that God is racist, too.

Bernard

And that was my point too. We can also claim that Christ was racist since he appeared to one particular group of people.

[why me]

Then be my guest to make the scriptural case. I don't see it. God is not racist. He is perfect.

His treatment of the other groups in the old testament shows him favoring one race above others. That would make him racist. He seems to be spending a lot of time among the jews. He seemed to forget the others such as the Egyptians.

Edited February 17, 2012 by why me

[Verum]

We need to go back to the problem with Black Pete and his unauthorize use of polygamy. He took it upon himself to be married to a few whte women. When BY discovered this, he panicked and certain retrictions took place. Black Pete was excommunicated for his offence and restrictions were placed on the black members. I think that after the black pete problem, the church realized that the outside world would not tolerate a black man being married to several white women. And the church would be violently attacked by mobs and maybe even many members would be murdered and the church would come under threats by mobs that would be out for any mormon blood that they could find.

Since when is it right to excommunicate someone due to threat or social pressures of society, especially when it relates to moral issues like racial discrimination? Even if the threat of mobs was real, is it still right to racially discriminate in order preserve the church? Also, there was an even stronger and more real threat from society because of polygamy, and Brigham Young had no problem taking on that risk, because the belief was that polygamy was ordained of God no matter what society thought of it. If the prophets believed racial discrimination was wrong, then wouldn't they have no problem standing up for it? Isn't that similar to what the church is doing now with gay marriage? They are taking a moral stand on an issue that is at odds with society. The one and only true church does not let social pressures overturn divinely revealed gospel principles.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Verum

[orion88]

Even if the threat of mobs was real, is it still right to racially discriminate in order preserve the church?

Denying the priesthood to those of African descent is not considered racial discrimination - neither

is denying the priesthood to females.

Also, there was an even stronger and more real threat from society because of polygamy, and Brigham Young had no problem taking on that risk, because the belief was that polygamy was ordained of God no matter what society thought of it.

If Brigham Young really felt that way, they would have ended up in Mexico. They had to get

rid of polygamy in Utah or else it would not have become a member state.

The one and only true church does not let social pressures overturn divinely revealed gospel principles.

Denying the priesthood to those of a certain lineage is not a divinely revealed gospel principle.

If you have something to prove otherwise, then I would appreciate an authentic reference so I

can check.

[altersteve]

Denying the priesthood to those of a certain lineage is not a divinely revealed gospel principle.

If you have something to prove otherwise, then I would appreciate an authentic reference so I

can check.

God restricted the priesthood to only a certain group of people in the Old Testament, so yes, it is.

[katherine the great]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread, but has anyone mentioned the fact that there is a world of difference between saying "only this group of people can have this blessing" and "everyone else can have this blessing except for you."? I really don't see how the priesthood ban can be compared to ancient Levite priesthood birthright or the Savior's ministry which excluded all Gentiles. I think it was a mistake and I wish the church would publicly apologize for it.

[cinepro]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread, but has anyone mentioned the fact that there is a world of difference between saying "only this group of people can have this blessing" and "everyone else can have this blessing except for you."? I really don't see how the priesthood ban can be compared to ancient Levite priesthood birthright or the Savior's ministry which excluded all Gentiles. I think it was a mistake and I wish the church would publicly apologize for it.

It is one of those analogies that sounds so good upon first hearing it, I suspect few people think about it much further.

[Verum]

Denying the priesthood to those of African descent is not considered racial discrimination - neither

is denying the priesthood to females.

Yes it is. In fact, its a prime example of racial discrimination...but according to church doctrine...it wasn't wrongful discrimination because it was justified because there was scriptural precedent and God hadn't revealed otherwise. But even If it really was of God, its still racial discrimination, its just justified because God commands it. The debate here is whether the policy was really from God or if it was derived from human prejudices or flawed understanding.

And yes, you are right, denying the priesthood to females is NOT racial discrimination....its sexist discrimination.

If Brigham Young really felt that way, they would have ended up in Mexico. They had to get

rid of polygamy in Utah or else it would not have become a member state.

Many did end up in Mexico if I remember correctly. So, reversing its position on polygamy happened because of social pressure, or was it because of revelation? Or does God reveal things in reaction to social pressure? Does the Lord compromise gospel principles in order to preserve the institution? If the church gets too much social pressure about gay marriage, should the church give in order preserve itself?

Denying the priesthood to those of a certain lineage is not a divinely revealed gospel principle.

If you have something to prove otherwise, then I would appreciate an authentic reference so I

can check.

What I was referring to here was in response to a post that basically said that BY and the church could not have allowed interracial marriage because of the threat of mobs or violence based on the racial views of society during the time. My point is that if the Lord truly believed society was wrong, he could have revealed that to his church through divine revelation. In other words, divine revelation of moral values would guide the church on moral issues, NOT social pressures.

[ebeddoulos]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread, but has anyone mentioned the fact that there is a world of difference between saying "only this group of people can have this blessing" and "everyone else can have this blessing except for you."? I really don't see how the priesthood ban can be compared to ancient Levite priesthood birthright or the Savior's ministry which excluded all Gentiles. I think it was a mistake and I wish the church would publicly apologize for it.

My grandfather, our family scriptorian, back in late 1965 walked me through the scriptures illustrating both the historical time line argument and the wrongness of many of the other, then current, justifications. He told me that the "brethren" would one day, "better sooner than later", change the custom. "In the meantime", he said, "It was better to be last in line than not in the line at all."

As for an apology, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, one of the biggest purveyors of the aforementioned justifications, has already publicly stated that he was wrong. That is enough.

[Bernard Gui]

Then be my guest to make the scriptural case. I don't see it. God is not racist. He is perfect. His servants, however, embody all manner of wrongs, including racism. Therefore, when looking for a reason for the ban, Brigham's racism is an option; God's isn't.

He created the races of men. He established eternal covenants and administered the priesthood through certain lineages. He has a chosen people. The gospel was not preached to all peoples at first. A special revelation was given before the gospel was preached to Gentiles (an exact parallel with the priesthood ban).

"I don't know" can be a perfectly honest answer. In fact, I fully admit that I don't know. But that answer is not enough for me and many others. I want to know. Investigators want to know. My neighbors want to know. Voters looking at Romney want to know.

So, Romney doesn't get elected. I doubt it would be for this reason. Anyway, God's kingdom is not of this world. What exactly do all these folks want to know?

And so far, the best reason I've found is racism. If you have a better one, please share because I'd love to be wrong. But don't take too much time.

I am satisfied with the explanation presently given by the Church. I have my own beliefs, but I am open to change. If the Church officially gives more information, I am quite willing to accept it.

If Romney is the nominee, this will be a huge issue by year's end. We better start telling our story or others will.

So, it will be a huge issue. We've faced huge issues before, and we will face many more in the future.

Do you really want Krakauer to be the one explaining this on the 10 o'clock news? I'd much prefer a general authority, or at least Bushman or Givens. "I don't know" may have been a fine story since 1978. But it can't be the story going forward.

Krakauer is not God. I don't concern myself with what he says on the news. I have great respect for Bros. Bushman and Givens, but they are not prophets or apostles. If the general authorities think a correction will be made, they will make it.

Bernard

Edited February 18, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[why me]

Since when is it right to excommunicate someone due to threat or social pressures of society, especially when it relates to moral issues like racial discrimination? Even if the threat of mobs was real, is it still right to racially discriminate in order preserve the church? Also, there was an even stronger and more real threat from society because of polygamy, and Brigham Young had no problem taking on that risk, because the belief was that polygamy was ordained of God no matter what society thought of it. If the prophets believed racial discrimination was wrong, then wouldn't they have no problem standing up for it? Isn't that similar to what the church is doing now with gay marriage? They are taking a moral stand on an issue that is at odds with society. The one and only true church does not let social pressures overturn divinely revealed gospel principles.

Black Pete to my recollection was messing around with many white women who he took to be his wives. He was not authorized to do so. Thus, he was fornicating all over the place. See the point? Now think for a moment if this would have gone out to the neighorboring gentiles. Much problem would ensue. You can hear and read about black pete here:

http://mormonstories...eldspriesthood/

Just go to the Black Pete section of the presentation.

Edited February 18, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

Would you share some newspaper articles and/or references in the Ensign magazines that

show all this rejoicing you talk about?

http://www.lds.org/e...church?lang=eng

Warm Responses to Priesthood Announcement

By Janet Brigham

News Editor

On a quiet Friday in June, the announcement came: “… every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood.”

The reaction? For Church members, joyous surprise, a warm witness that a living prophet receives revelation, and increased understanding. For nonmembers, praise mingled with curiosity.

Church members throughout the world say they will always remember what they were doing when they heard the announcement, which was made June 9 from Salt Lake City. The official notification of the revelation was sent in a letter to Church leaders throughout the world. The news media carried the news in front-page headlines.

Newspapers across the United States delayed editions to include the news; two news magazines, Time and Newsweek, stopped the presses on their weekend editions to get the story in. The news made the front page of The New York Times. Newspapers that previously had been neutral or negative on Church-related issues carried laudatory editorials. U.S. President Jimmy Carter commended President Spencer W. Kimball for “compassionate prayerfulness and courage.”

Yet the real news was in the lives that the revelation affects.

Brother Mel Stricklin of the North Branch Ward, East Brunswick New Jersey Stake, a postal worker, was at work when his wife called him to relay the news. The Stricklins, who are black, joined the Church seven years ago.

“I was so overwhelmed that I just got warm all over. I couldn’t sit down, I couldn’t stand up. I had to go outside and thank God that now my family and I can be sealed together,” Brother Stricklin says. “It was such a wonderful feeling that I can’t put it into words. I think it was the most important announcement of my life. It means so much to us, after waiting so long.”

Brother Stricklin was interviewed by his bishop that Sunday and was ordained a priest in the Aaronic Priesthood a week later. He will be presented at stake conference in August to be ordained an elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood. After that ordination, the Stricklins plan to be sealed.

“I feel it’s an awesome responsibility to act in the name of God. I’m praying to the Lord every day that I can be worthy to receive his Spirit and authority.”

The Stricklins are thankful that Brother Stricklin’s life has been spared twice by priesthood blessings. And they are thankful for the support of their ward. On the day of the announcement, the Stricklins’ telephone rang continuously from 3 P.M. to 11 P.M. The last call was from a man in Salt Lake City—the former missionary who baptized them.

Throughout the Church, steps were taken to ordain worthy men such as Brother Stricklin. A brief telegram, received at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City a few days after the announcement, stated that an ordination had taken place in Bangkok, Thailand, on what would have been Saturday in the United States. (Thailand is a day ahead of the United States.)

In the Plainview Long Island Stake, the opportunity for one such member of the Church came soon after the announcement of the revelation. He was presented for a sustaining vote in a stake conference June 11. Stake President Charles Neaman relates: “We had sustained one other man, and this man was next. He stood up and held his little son. We asked for a sustaining vote on his behalf. The hands just shot up. To me, that was just like sustaining the prophet.”

The announcement also had an impact on those whose lives were not directly affected. Stake President Conrad Caldwell of the Houston Texas Stake says he is excited—and sobered—about the implications of the revelation. “The way is now open for more missionary work,” he says. “And it certainly is indicative of the times in which we live, and the need for things to be done.”

Stake President Richard L. Chapple of the Tallahassee Florida Stake recounts what he has learned from the revelation: “I now understand more fully the concept that there really is a prophet, and the process followed to receive the revelation. It’s a great lesson—what have I really prayed that long and hard for?

“Now we’re so excited. We can really see the Church going forth. It’s great to be alive and part of it. It’s as right as it can be.”

Unfortunately the majority of the contemporary articles would likely have been in the Church News which is not online for that time period.

Edited February 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

God didn't select one group over another, their individual righteousness selected them. God stopped selected them when they stopped being righteous.

The absence of documents outlining god also did this with non Jews does not demonstrate unique preference. We believe many scriptures will yet be revealed - says nothing about them all from jewish/abrahmic backgrohnd. All we know is the Jews thought they were uniquely favored - a false belief that was partly responsible for their falling from gods grace.

God talks to all his children. Abraham listened really well - though his high priest was not Jewish and likely listened equally well - what of Melchizedek's records and the massive number of descendants who followed after Melchizedek? Because we dont have the record saying they were chose were they not chosen? Or are we really going to say that when Abraham became real righteous Melchizedek and his descendants probably fell away?

The book ether shows one other group that was co-favored with the people of Abraham. For every righteous person there is a covenant. The folks in Jerusalem committed a great sun when their pride refused to let them see this - doesn't seem right that we repeat that same error.

(null)

Edited February 18, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

There are archived newspaper articles that you can purchase that have some reports of events if you do a search on "every worthy male" or "official declaration 2", you can then use part of the listings to do additional searches to see if you can find the article without paying for it:

http://nl.newsbank.c...rch/we/Archives

Just after the June 9, 1978, First Presidency announcement extending the priesthood to every worthy male member in the Church, a young Christoffel Golden entered an LDS branch in his native South Africa."There was a free-flowing of tears among members hugging each other and just rejoicing in the fact that the Lord had seen fit in our day to provide the blessings of all the ordinances of the gospel to all of His sons and daughters irrespective of their...

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/39756/New-General-Authorities-He-grew-in-gospel-as-Church-spread-throughout-Africa.html

In his mind's eye, Marv Jenson witnessed scores of joyous Nigerian faces when he heard the news of the revelation to President Spencer W. Kimball in 1978.That happy June 1 manifestation meant every worthy male member of the Church could hold the priesthood. For the first time, all the people of the world could participate fully in the gospel. Like thousands of others, Brother Jenson had spent years prayerfully anticipating such news.He had come to love Nigeria and her...

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/39443/Revelation-brought-joy-to-storied-boxing-manager.html

Edited February 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Not a newspaper article, but a BYU devotional talk: http://www.lightplan...aron_africa.htm

orion, think I am ready to go to sleep now. Hope this gives you a taste of the experience, sorry I could not find more detailed accounts.

Edited February 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Arkholt]

I wonder how different this discussion would be in a group entirely consisting of black people. I wonder how they feel about it. I wonder how comfortable they feel when a white person tells them that the priesthood ban wasn't racist.

I wonder if my (and others') perspective from being a white person is clouding their judgement a little.

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.lds.org/e...church?lang=eng

Unfortunately the majority of the contemporary articles would likely have been in the Church News which is not online for that time period.

Alas, our online archives only go back to 1988, but for what it's worth, here is a retrospective I wrote back in 1999:

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/36935/Revelation-rewarded-those-who-waited.html

[Jeff K.]

I wonder how different this discussion would be in a group entirely consisting of black people. I wonder how they feel about it. I wonder how comfortable they feel when a white person tells them that the priesthood ban wasn't racist.

I wonder if my (and others') perspective from being a white person is clouding their judgement a little.

Comfort levels are usually dependent on the information and knowledge and context held by everyone involved. Not by race.

You would be surprised at the many different cultural perspectives that intersect, converge and diverge among all communities regardless of race. Something to consider when we want to insert race into a question or when someone else inserts race into the question.

[orion88]

God restricted the priesthood to only a certain group of people in the Old Testament, so yes, it is.

Sorry. I should have clarified things. I was looking for a divinely revealed gospel principle

barring those of Negro-descent from the priesthood before 1978.