Priesthood Ban: Questions On Lineage

[Deborah]

If you want to know the reasoning, read the paper! Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood, by his son, Ed Kimball, for BYU Studies

This paper supports what some of us have been saying that we don't know the reason for the ban and in fact several prophets pleaded for a change but until that revelation came it could not be changed. The fact that it took a revelation to change it shows that there is more to this then just "tradition" and as the paper discusses several prophets and other GA's were very concerned and struggled with this but could not make the change until the Lord let them know the time had come.

It is not without precedent that a certain group of people are ineligible for the Priesthood. I think the reasoning given in the early days was in error but that doesn't mean the policy was.

[Jeff K.]

It seems to me you do a great deal to avoid context in order to push forth your own judgements and views.

We do know! I've been jumping around in every thread this comes up in, yelling as loud as I can, and yet this objection still crops up, and the reason it crops up is because people don't read Ed Kimball's paper. If you want to know the reasoning, read the paper! Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood, by his son, Ed Kimball, for BYU Studies

No, we don't... You have read something and you have elevated it to gospel. Thats fine, but if I went by everything that was written by every member on every subject and placed it in the level of gospel, well, I think we would be somewhat confused to the point of apostasy since there are a number of opinions out there as to the where and why. If it goes to the level you claim, I can't see why the apostles and prophets do not go ahead and place it in the teachings of the church. The question is, do I trust you to tell me what is righteous? Not really, your decion making is flawed, as it should be for all mortal men. Do I trust perhaps Ed Kimball, well don't know him from Adam, haven't been given anything in relation to revelation that this man knows the truth or not.

You seem to put a great deal of trust in men, I am less sanguine about it.

Quote

I personally choose not to judge God as being fair or unfair,

This is, in fact, a judgment.

Chuckle... no its not, it is a decision not to judge since I do not know. You should try it sometime.

Quote

I do not think God is cruel when bad things happen to good people,

Which is a judgment you have made of His character, based on your limited understanding of how He works.

Based on a testimony of the Holy Ghost and the Atonement. One wonders what you base your testimony on?

I do not put so much trust in myself that I know what is or is not absolutely true, some things are very clear and plain, and in other things not so much. When one spouts that "truth is all the authority you need" or "because I know it must be so", I think the term hubris comes to bear. It seems you are very proud of your ability to judge accordingly, but I wouldn't be as confident as you seem to want us to think you are. God will not be judged by you.

[Jeff K.]

This paper supports what some of us have been saying that we don't know the reason for the ban and in fact several prophets pleaded for a change but until that revelation came it could not be changed. The fact that it took a revelation to change it shows that there is more to this then just "tradition" and as the paper discusses several prophets and other GA's were very concerned and struggled with this but could not make the change until the Lord let them know the time had come.

It is not without precedent that a certain group of people are ineligible for the Priesthood. I think the reasoning given in the early days was in error but that doesn't mean the policy was.

Jeremy Orbe Smith would be disturbed by your conclusion given it does not coincide with his unique take on things.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Jeff K.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The fact that it took a revelation to change it merely means that people had elevated a policy into a doctrine without authority, and then refused to let go of it without an official revelation, despite the utter lack of historical evidence supporting it [edit: supporting the justification for the policy, that is, not the revelation]. The circularity of their reasoning is not evidence of some sort of divine design. If the reasoning for the Ban was itself in error, then the necessity of the Ban evaporates as well, so that's hardly a defense.

And the evidence that previous Prophets had pleaded with the Lord to the degree that Kimball did is ambiguous at very best. For instance, Arrington, in "Adventures of a Church Historian, and Arrington to [Ed Kimball], February 10 and June 15, 1998, assert[ed] that President Lee, shortly before his death, sought the Lord’s will on the question of blacks and priesthood during “three days and nights [of] fasting in the upper room of the temple, [...] but the only answer he received was ‘not yet.’” Arrington relied on an unidentified person close to President Lee, but President Lee’s son-in-law and biographer found no record of such an incident and thought it doubtful."

I ask again, why is it important to believe that God was behind the Ban? What are we gaining? Why is it necessary? As far as I can tell, it's a perniciously dangerous interpretation of history that should be tossed out, because far from preserving faith in the Lord's servants, it is actively destructive of it.

Jeff: Ah, the inevitable holier-than-thou testimony-bearing accompanied by further questioning of what I base my testimony on, since you refuse to actually give a reasoned response to anything I've brought up, self-satisfied with your pat non-answers. Yeah, have fun with that, dude.

Edited February 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[LeSellers]

I see the parables in Mark and Luke to be simplified versions of teachings which the Apostles were given in full.

You may be right, but that doesn't answer the query.

Jesus said He taught some people so they would not understand, others that they might.

You didn't address the Bible Dictionary article at all, where, with the Brethren's approval, the editor explicitly said that the parables veiled the meaning of His teachings.

Further, since you seem to think this view is condescending, you ought, at least, to show something other than your personal opinion that supports your contrary position. This I believe you have not done.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

The fact that it took a revelation to change it merely means that people had elevated a policy into a doctrine without authority, and then refused to let go of it without an official revelation, despite the utter lack of historical evidence supporting it. The circularity of their reasoning is not evidence of some sort of divine design. If the reasoning for the Ban was itself in error, then the necessity of the Ban evaporates as well, so that's hardly a defense.

And the evidence that previous Prophets had pleaded with the Lord to the degree that Kimball did is ambiguous at very best. For instance, Arrington, in "Adventures of a Church Historian, and Arrington to [Ed Kimball], February 10 and June 15, 1998, assert[ed] that President Lee, shortly before his death, sought the Lord’s will on the question of blacks and priesthood during “three days and nights [of] fasting in the upper room of the temple, [...] but the only answer he received was ‘not yet.’” Arrington relied on an unidentified person close to President Lee, but President Lee’s son-in-law and biographer found no record of such an incident and thought it doubtful."

Jeff: Ah, the inevitable holier-than-thou testimony-bearing accompanied by further questioning of what I base my testimony on, since you refuse to actually give a reasoned response to anything I've brought up, self-satisfied with your pat non-answers. Yeah, have fun with that, dude.

So whenever revelation is required it is because practice elevated something incorrectly. Really? That seems somewhat flawed. As to the demand for historical evidence, since when does historical evidence trump revelation? What was the historical evidence or the Word of Wisdom? For the birth of the Messiah -- The Pharisees and Sadducees were repleat with historical evidence that Jesus was not the Christ.

I ask again, why is it important to believe that God was behind the Ban? What are we gaining? Why is it necessary? As far as I can tell, it's a perniciously dangerous interpretation of history that should be tossed out, because far from preserving faith in the Lord's servants, it is actively destructive of it.

Why is it important to believe God was "NOT" behind it? Oh yes, to you it is important because you have judged it so. This is what I call truly ego centric. The point is that it isn't that important to believe one way or the other, that is a flaw you will deal with. It is more important to realize that we don't know, and revelation has assured us as to what it is NOW. No one here but you is caught up in the one idea, willing to call down condemnation upon God rather than be patient in waiting to know. It seems to me you are placing a high bet against God, and basing it on your own judgment of both God and others. What happens if a prophet says "it was revelation to withold? Do you condemn God then? His prophets? If a revelation comes forth and it was simply a policy gone awry, its no big deal, glad its over, let us be happy that it is cleared up. You seem to be the only one who is sitting on the edge of condemning or condemnation. No one else feels the need to judge God as you have.

Jeff: Ah, the inevitable holier-than-thou testimony-bearing accompanied by further questioning of what I base my testimony on, since you refuse to actually give a reasoned response to anything I've brought up, self-satisfied with your pat non-answers. Yeah, have fun with that, dude.

I have given a reasoned response "dude", it is too bad you chose to be so unreasonable. Not only have I given a reasoned response, others who by no means are supporters of me, have echoed that reasoned response. So the next time you want real history "dude" try acting like a historian, rather than judgementally condemning God if he doesn't meet your invented standards.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sigh. I give up. You guys are correct, God clearly had a deep, deep purpose in mind by instituting a racist policy, and if we mere mortals deign to judge or even question Him, we are unrepentant sinners doomed to fall for our stunning hubris.

Edited February 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[David T]

New article in Washington Post.

Apparently, Randy Bott at BYU is still teaching blacks were cursed descendants of Cain who, like children, weren't ready for the blessing until 1978, and it was withheld as a blessing.

[Jeff K.]

Sigh. I give up. You guys are correct, God clearly had a deep, deep purpose in mind by instituting a racist policy, and if we mere mortals deign to judge or even question Him, we are unrepentant sinners doomed to fall for our stunning hubris.

Stop using false rhetoric. The point everyone here says is "they don't know". You are the only absolutist here making and casting judgements. Everyone except you is more than willing to concede they aren't sure, and they certianly aren't going to judge God about something they aren't sure about.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Jeff K.

[LeSellers]

...God clearly had a deep, deep purpose in mind by instituting a racist policy, a...

The issue for me is that you, like many others, assume it's "a racist policy".

""Racist" being a chronocentric concept, it's more than merely possible that God knows things you do not, and has ways of addressing situations that you may not approve, yet are more than equitable and just.

Lehi

Edited February 28, 2012 by LeSellers

[cinepro]

New article in Washington Post.

Apparently, Randy Bott at BYU is still teaching blacks were cursed descendants of Cain who, like children, weren't ready for the blessing until 1978, and it was withheld as a blessing.

This is pretty funny on his Wikipedia page:

Bott's tests, which he calls "celebrations", are open-note, open-book. In 2008, Bott taught 3,149 students at BYU, which is more than 10 percent of the university's student body.

Out of the more than one million professors listed on Ratemyprofessors.com and the six million ratings listed there, Bott was the highest-rated professor in America in 2008.

Hmmmm...I wonder if the "celebrations" have anything to do with the high rating.

I heard him speak at EFY once, but nothing that interesting came up.

But here's the pertinent quote from the article:

The ground floor of the Joseph Smith building, which houses BYU’s religion department, showcases a likeness of the golden tablets from which Joseph Smith is said to have translated the Book of Mormon. Paintings upstairs depict the Lamanites, the tribe in Mormon scripture that bears dark skin as a sign of God’s curse.

In his office, religion professor Randy Bott explains a possible theological underpinning of the ban. According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who slew his brother Abel, “were black.” One of Cain’s descendants was Egyptus, a woman Mormons believe was the namesake of Egypt. She married Ham, whose descendants were themselves cursed and, in the view of many Mormons, barred from the priesthood by his father, Noah. Bott points to the Mormon holy text, the Book of Abraham, as suggesting that all of the descendents of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood.

It’s not clear whether Joseph Smith, the religion’s founder, who ordained at least one black priest, supported the ban. But his successor, Brigham Young, enforced it enthusiastically as the word of God, supporting slavery in Utah and decreeing that the “mark” on Cain was “the flat nose and black skin.” Young subsequently urged immediate death to any participant in mixing of the races. As recently as 1949, church leaders suggested the ban on blacks resulted from the consequences of the “conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence.” As a result, many Mormons believed that blacks were less valiant in the pre-earth life, or fence sitters in the war between God and Satan. That view has fallen out of favor in recent decades.

“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, argues Bott, the BYU theologian. He quotes Mormon scripture which argues that the Lord gives to people “all that he seeth fit.” Bott compares blacks to a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.

“What is discrimination?” Bott asks. “I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?” Bott argues that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on earth — though not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

Edited February 28, 2012 by cinepro

[David T]

The issue for me is that you, like many others, assume it's "a racist policy".

""Racist" being a chronocentric concept, it's more than merely possible that God knows things you do not, and has ways of addressing situations that you may not approve, yet are more than equitable and just.

Lehi

NO! It doesn't matter if it was a thousand years ago, or 50 years ago. Racism is racism. Period. We might forgive them because they were dumber 1000 years ago, but that doesn't mean it was somehow good because those doing it didn't know better.

The policy excluded the african race/lineage from the priesthood, with the black skin color being an initial key indicator and explained as a mark of the curse. Because they later limited this, and made the brazillian exception, etc, doesn't mean the roots weren't racist.

Some people like believing in a God that views family lines as somehow being significant. I think it's old superstitious traditional hooey. And there we are.

I'm grateful God can use people with even deep weaknesses to fulfill his purposes. I'm okay with recognizing that they can do powerful, inspired and wonderful works, while at the same time being quite wrong and hurtful on other issues.

Edited February 28, 2012 by nackhadlow

[LeSellers]

It doesn't matter if it was a thousand years ago, or 50 years ago. Racism is racism. Period. We might forgive them because they were dumber 1000 years ago, but that doesn't mean it was somehow good because those doing it didn't know better.

That's one of the hallmarks of chronocentrism: the inability to see anything but one's own biases as "good" and everything else as "bad".

Sorry, I'm going to assume that God knows what's going on in His Church and allow Him to makes any changes as He sees fit. It seems more than a bit presumptive for me to tell Him that He's doing it wrong.

Lehi

[cinepro]

That's one of the hallmarks of chronocentrism: the inability to see anything but one's own biases as "good" and everything else as "bad".

Sorry, I'm going to assume that God knows what's going on in His Church and allow Him to makes any changes as He sees fit. It seems more than a bit presumptive for me to tell Him that He's doing it wrong.

Lehi

It isn't faith if you're supporting a mistake.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Ugh. That article made me cry, nackhadlow.

Do you who are insisting that "we don't know whether it was from God" really not see the evil that this policy caused and continues to cause?

It's not.

From.

God.

The God I worship is the one who said that none of these iniquities come from Him, that He does what is good among the children of men, that he does nothing save it be plain to the children of men, that he inviteth all to come unto him and partake of his goodness, that he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen, and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)

Of course, the article also gave me a bit of renewed energy to participate in this thread, so that if I get hit by a bus this afternoon, at least I'll know that there's a chance my friends and family can dig up this conversation and have proof that some Mormons, at least, refuse to tolerate a racist policy regardless of who it's from or when it was implemented.

(Skipping my afternoon class, unfortunately -- part of a history degree, if that bit of information makes a difference to y'all who seem to crave authoritarian pronouncements as if there is any authority besides truth. Maybe one day I'll be able to just say "as a real historian, I declare such-and-such" rather than going through the tedium of trying to argue from evidence.)

I don't care what the Bible Dictionary says or who approved it if it's not true. It's not doctrinal, and it can be superseded by further scholarly work.

The reference in Mark 4 and Luke 8 is an instance of Christ quoting the Old Testament, specifically Isaiah 6:9, where Isaiah sees the throne of God surrounded by angels, and one of the Seraphs comes to him with a burning coal and strikes it against his mouth, prompting the Lord to commission him to bring a voice of warning to the people because they hear and yet do not understand, they see, and yet do not know. It's a striking echo of the story of the premortal commissioning of Christ in the Pearl of Great Price.

In the context of Mark 4, which begins with the parable of planting seeds in good ground, Christ is referencing the Isaiah story and emphasizing that they need to plant their seed of faith in good soil as well. When Christ is talking to his disciples, He is delivering to them, essentially, a theophany of who He really is by referencing the Isaiah verse which has a different context. In other words, He's preparing the way for them to receive Him as the Messiah. It's not about keeping a secret, it's referencing a common quote they'd connect with His divine commission.

Tellingly, later in the same chapter in both cases, Christ asks them "Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick? For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

He's not trying to keep His works or reasons a secret; He's trying to make sure that when He speaks, His words are planted in good ground.

Most importantly, in that very same chapter, He also states that “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it," putting the lie to the idea that lineage is important in any way.

So let's put away this utterly irrelevant side-issue and talk about the real problem: this incorrect and insultingly disingenuous notion that this policy was in some twisted, convoluted way, not racist.

Racism -- I cannot stress this enough -- is not a "chronocentric" concept. If something is restricted by race/lineage, it is, by definition, racist. Bang, case closed, end of story. Just because it happened four thousand years ago makes it "not racist"? Complete rubbish. Or is slavery a "chronocentric" concept as well? How about murder?

Oh, hey, maybe Lucifer was right to try to take away man's agency -- after all, agency might merely be a "chronocentric" concept! But don't question him, have faith in him and we'll be rewarded in the next life, even if we can't understand why he would do something like that -- after all, who are we mere finite mortals to judge this glorious angel, this beloved Son of the Morning? That's hubris! Who cares if the works of Justice are destroyed -- Gods can never fall and cease to be Gods worth worshipping! We're just puny little creatures, separated by a vast ontological gulf from the indescribable splendor that is an angel!

...

Another very good question at this point is why, for heaven's sake, we deny women the Priesthood. *notes the satisfying sound of a can of worms being opened*

Edited February 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Cushan Rishathaim]

This is pretty funny on his Wikipedia page:

Hmmmm...I wonder if the "celebrations" have anything to do with the high rating.

I heard him speak at EFY once, but nothing that interesting came up.

But here's the pertinent quote from the article:

I don't care how high his marks are, this man should be censured. It seems to me that BYU professors have been censured for publishing far less offense remarks in public than these racists views.

[Jeff K.]

Some people like believing in a God that views family lines as somehow being significant. I think it's old superstitious traditional hooey. And there we are.

You mean all of the scriptures, including Christs own words regarding lineage? Or Christs lineage? All of that is superstitious hooey? Family and lineage is the basis of our church and yes, the House of David is significant, the house of Ephraim is significant. You may as well reject the entire basis of the church. Which you might have done, that is not for me to say since I know little about it.

Claim of racism is foolish since we aren't sure.

[Jeff K.]

Ugh. That article made me cry, nackhadlow.

Do you who are insisting that "we don't know whether it was from God" really not see the evil that this policy caused and continues to cause?

It's not.

From.

God.

The God I worship is the one who said that none of these iniquities come from Him, that He does what is good among the children of men, that he does nothing save it be plain to the children of men, that he inviteth all to come unto him and partake of his goodness, that he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen, and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)

Of course, the article also gave me a bit of renewed energy to participate in this thread, so that if I get hit by a bus this afternoon, at least I'll know that there's a chance my friends and family can dig up this conversation and have proof that some Mormons, at least, refuse to tolerate a racist policy regardless of who it's from or when it was implemented.

(Skipping my afternoon class, unfortunately -- part of a history degree, if that bit of information makes a difference to y'all who seem to crave authoritarian pronouncements as if there is any authority besides truth. Maybe one day I'll be able to just say "as a real historian, I declare such-and-such" rather than going through the tedium of trying to argue from evidence.)

I don't care what the Bible Dictionary says or who approved it if it's not true. It's not doctrinal, and it can be superseded by further scholarly work.

The reference in Mark 4 and Luke 8 is an instance of Christ quoting the Old Testament, specifically Isaiah 6:9, where Isaiah sees the throne of God surrounded by angels, and one of the Seraphs comes to him with a burning coal and strikes it against his mouth, prompting the Lord to commission him to bring a voice of warning to the people because they hear and yet do not understand, they see, and yet do not know. It's a striking echo of the story of the premortal commissioning of Christ in the Pearl of Great Price.

In the context of Mark 4, which begins with the parable of planting seeds in good ground, Christ is referencing the Isaiah story and emphasizing that they need to plant their seed of faith in good soil as well. When Christ is talking to his disciples, He is delivering to them, essentially, a theophany of who He really is by referencing the Isaiah verse which has a different context. In other words, He's preparing the way for them to receive Him as the Messiah. It's not about keeping a secret, it's referencing a common quote they'd connect with His divine commission.

Tellingly, later in the same chapter in both cases, Christ asks them "Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick? For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

He's not trying to keep His works or reasons a secret; He's trying to make sure that when He speaks, His words are planted in good ground.

Most importantly, in that very same chapter, He also states that “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it," putting the lie to the idea that lineage is important in any way.

So let's put away this utterly irrelevant side-issue and talk about the real problem: this incorrect and insultingly disingenuous notion that this policy was in some twisted, convoluted way, not racist.

Racism -- I cannot stress this enough -- is not a "chronocentric" concept. If something is restricted by race/lineage, it is, by definition, racist. Bang, case closed, end of story. Just because it happened four thousand years ago makes it "not racist"? Complete rubbish. Or is slavery a "chronocentric" concept as well? How about murder?

Oh, hey, maybe Lucifer was right to try to take away man's agency -- after all, agency might merely be a "chronocentric" concept! But don't question him, have faith in him and we'll be rewarded in the next life, even if we can't understand why he would do something like that -- after all, who are we mere finite mortals to judge this glorious angel, this beloved Son of the Morning? That's hubris! Who cares if the works of Justice are destroyed -- Gods can never fall and cease to be Gods worth worshipping! We're just puny little creatures, separated by a vast ontological gulf from the indescribable splendor that is an angel!

...

Another very good question at this point is why, for heaven's sake, we deny women the Priesthood. *notes the satisfying sound of a can of worms being opened*

Not sure which boutique you pulled out the God you worship. Apparently you pick and choose the God you wish to worship. The problem is that your choice is not necessarily God so much as an echo of your own egocentric wants.

[jadams_4242]

I beg to differ. Clearly the idea that the priesthood can be limited by patrilineal descent is not an Mormon invention. Furthermore, certain ordinances are still restricted to the sons of Levi in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This fact alone indicates that the lineage requirement of the priesthood is not simply an extension of the pattern of discrimination against blacks in American history. You realize, Thomas S Monson is disqualified by lineage from performing certain ordinances.

Thats not correct at all.....

[cinepro]

You mean all of the scriptures, including Christs own words regarding lineage? Or Christs lineage? All of that is superstitious hooey? Family and lineage is the basis of our church and yes, the House of David is significant, the house of Ephraim is significant. You may as well reject the entire basis of the church. Which you might have done, that is not for me to say since I know little about it.

Claim of racism is foolish since we aren't sure.

You don't by chance believe that Joseph Smith was a literal descendant of Jesus, do you?

There's actually a book on this subject:

All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage

"All Abraham's Children" is Armand L. Mauss's long-awaited magnum opus on the evolution of traditional Mormon beliefs and practices concerning minorities. He examines how members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have defined themselves and others in terms of racial lineages. Mauss describes a complex process of the broadening of these self-defined lineages during the last part of the twentieth century as the modern Mormon church continued its world-wide expansion through massive missionary work. Mauss contends that Mormon constructions of racial identity have not necessarily affected actual behavior negatively and that in some cases Mormons have shown greater tolerance than other groups in the American mainstream. Employing a broad intellectual historical analysis to identify shifts in LDS behavior over time, "All Abraham's Children" is an important commentary on current models of Mormon historiography.

The modern LDS view of such things isn't the same as the 1950s LDS view, or the 1880s LDS view, or the 1840s LDS view. Whichever view is the "basis" for the Church, it is evolving and changing over time, and no matter how critical you think a certain idea is, we're only a generation away from it disappearing into the ether of orphaned doctrines.

Edited February 29, 2012 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

I don't think prophets need to be literal descendents of Christ. So that is irrelevant to me, but lineage is maintained as being important, both by the tribes of Israel as well as by prophecy

[cinepro]

I don't think prophets need to be literal descendents of Christ. So that is irrelevant to me, but lineage is maintained as being important, both by the tribes of Israel as well as by prophecy

I hate to be the one to say it, but with the liberal application of the principle of "adoption", "lineage" is almost an almost totally semantic concept in the Church. We still use the words, but they don't actually mean anything.

Edited February 29, 2012 by cinepro

[David T]

You mean all of the scriptures, including Christs own words regarding lineage? Or Christs lineage? All of that is superstitious hooey? Family and lineage is the basis of our church and yes, the House of David is significant, the house of Ephraim is significant. You may as well reject the entire basis of the church.

So if it turns out that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a descendant of King David - would everything fall to the ground for you? If it turned out that there really weren't 12 brothers (or rather, 10 brothers, and two of their nephews) who were the historical eponymous ancestors of the Tribes of Israel, would everything fall to the ground for you?

If it turns out that there really isn't a special spiritual power associated with a genetic link to a tribe named after on of those eponymous ancestors - Ephraim - would everything fall to the ground for you?

If the answer is yes, then why is that? What is it your faith in the gospel is placed in? What is the Church and Gospel to you? I think these are very, very important questions that go far, far beyond the exact accurate historiography of the scriptures. Jesus revealed God - and Jesus taught in inspired stories that didn't rely on historical grounding to teach essential Truth.

[juliann]

New article in Washington Post.

Apparently, Randy Bott at BYU is still teaching blacks were cursed descendants of Cain who, like children, weren't ready for the blessing until 1978, and it was withheld as a blessing.

Some of that stuff has been directly refuted very authoritatively. What in the world was this guy thinking? I have been shocked by the number of members trying to defend this unsupportable nonsense as doctrine but this takes it to a whole new level.

[juliann]

The issue for me is that you, like many others, assume it's "a racist policy".

""Racist" being a chronocentric concept, it's more than merely possible that God knows things you do not, and has ways of addressing situations that you may not approve, yet are more than equitable and just.

The ban was racist by definition and not only is there absolutely no point in denying the obvious anymore it is counterproductive. That is the word we use now whether you like it or not. They didn't use sexism when women had no rights but that is what we call it now. Unless you want to revisit the Tower of Babel and create new languages, I am afraid we are stuck with the one we have.