An Unfortunate Attempt To Explain The Pre-1978 Restriction On Priesthood

[LeSellers]

God also had the power to stop the Holocaust, the Spanish Flu, the Black Plague, and the recent school shooting just outside Kirtland. But he didn't. So obviously, to quote you, "it appears he was a big fan".

Those were not of His kingdom.

The denial of Priesthood blessings to black Africans was completely internal. It would take no restriction on the agency of man for Him to have ended it in 1856 any more than it did in 1978 (which was none at all).

Lehi

[juliann]

Where?

Lehi

You altered my quote. Is that what you have to resort to?

[LeSellers]

President Uchtdorf gave the best answer a couple weeks ago.

Yet the Lord did not stop it when President M^cKay asked about it, nor any of many others whose efforts have been posted here in the past week or so (not to mention the past several years).

Asking does not mean the Lord must change His timetable. When He was ready (for whatever reasons He had), He gave the revelation. No amount of prodding moved Him until June, 1978. And there was prodding.

Lehi

[Buckeye]

Those were not of His kingdom.

The denial of Priesthood blessings to black Africans was completely internal. It would take no restriction on the agency of man for Him to have ended it in 1856 any more than it did in 1978 (which was none at all).

Lehi

Fine then ... Mountain Meadows, numerous rapes of children by LDS scouting leaders, do we really need to do this?

[David T]

Those were not of His kingdom.

The denial of Priesthood blessings to black Africans was completely internal. It would take no restriction on the agency of man for Him to have ended it in 1856 any more than it did in 1978 (which was none at all).

Lehi

Have you done any reading on the history of intense process that went into the reception of that Revelation? God didn't just pop in one day and end it. It was the end result of research, prayer, coming to conclusions, and a broken heart and contrite spirit.

[Freedom]

It is time to put the racism aside, Freedom. Seriously.

You are accusing me of being racist? Did I ever make any derogatory comments about any given race? You seem to suffer from the same narrow minded opinions that you label upon past leaders. My argument is that we do not know. You can assume it was racism but you cannot prove it. Can you explain to me the ban that Jesus put in place? Was he racist? Can you explain the extermination orders God gave Moses? Was this racism? We all look through a glass darkly so making an argument either way is based on our own biases and limited perspective.

[David T]

Lehi, why do you want to believe that God really did want to keep blacks from holding the Priesthood and recieving the ordinances of the Temple from Brigham Young 'til nearly the 1980s?

Do you at least acknowledge that, even if you believe Brigham Young was inspired with instituting the ban, he also mingled the ban side by side with his well-attested racist language and explanations?

It would be far easier to believe the ban wasn't instituted as an act of human racism if the person who began it wasn't also a heavily documented racist.

I love Brigham Young, and the Lord certainly used him, but he was affected by his time, culture, and traditions. He did glorious things, but he also did things and taught things that any God worth worshiping would have been saddened by.

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Buckeye]

Yet the Lord did not stop it when President M^cKay asked about it, nor any of many others whose efforts have been posted here in the past week or so (not to mention the past several years).

Asking does not mean the Lord must change His timetable. When He was ready (for whatever reasons He had), He gave the revelation. No amount of prodding moved Him until June, 1978. And there was prodding.

Lehi

Because he allows all men their agency, including the Prophets. It is canonized doctrine that God allowed Joseph to err with respect to the 116 pages. Why can't it be possible that he allowed subsequent leaders to err on the racial ban?

[LeSellers]

You altered my quote. Is that what you have to resort to?

The reason for "altering" it was to let you know what I understood oyu to have meant. Neither your post, nor the one to which you replied, nor the combination, was clear.

So, what did you mean that the Church ["they"] condemn as racist?

Zeta-flux said: "If it was "racist" the current church condemns it."

You said: "Good point. And they just did."

Context is important, and it was lacking. What else could you have meant?

Lehi

[BCSpace]

Have you done any reading on the history of intense process that went into the reception of that Revelation? God didn't just pop in one day and end it. It was the end result of research, prayer, coming to conclusions, and a broken heart and contrite spirit.

Yet the Church hasn't repented of the ban and still maintains that it was Divinely appointed.

[LeSellers]

Lehi, why do you want to believe that God really did want to keep blacks from holding the Priesthood and recieving the ordinances of the Temple from Brigham Young 'til nearly the 1980s?

Why do you assume I do?

The only reason I support the denial of Priesthood blessings to black Africans until 1978 is that the Brethren did not change that policy until the Lord told them it was okeh to do so. They had asked before, and the request was denied. What other conclusion can we reach? God either instituted the denial of Priesthood blessings to them in life or He acceeded to it. in either case, I cannot accept that He is racist. That burden is on those who think He just stood by and let His chosen servants do things that were not in accord with His desires.

Do you at least acknowledge that, even if you believe Brigham Young was inspired with instituting the ban, he also mingled the ban with his well-attested racist language?

Geeeeees, you really like to pile it on, don't you?

Brigham Young's "racist language was tempered with his absolutely non-racist policies and language. He did not ever say that black Africans had no spirits, that they could not enter the Celestial kingdom. Even the denial of Priesthood blessings was fully acknowledged to be temporary.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

This cuts both ways, and any claim that it was not of God is simply "speculation and opinion, not doctrine." If anyone, on either side of the aisle, wants to claim doctrine, the burden is on them.

And I have accepted that burden. The Priesthood ban, and the fact that it was instituted by God, remains the official doctrine of the Church.

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng

[Freedom]

No, I rather doubt we'll ever see those racist ideas proved correct. Have you read the newsroom's statement today? I am not confident enough in my predictions to tell my children that they'll live to see the second coming. But I am confident they'll live to see the day that all racist teachings (especially by church leaders) are officially repudiated.

My guess is that sometime before the November election, you, Lehi, and your buds will finally be left without any straws to grasp.

"Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

I am not grasping at straws. If you think this then you have not read my posts. My argument has always been that we do not know. It could have been racism or it could have been divinely sanctioned. There are very sensible arguments to defend both sides of the issue. If the church does not make a statement by November, does this mean that you will finally be left without any straws to grasp? You seem to be on the verge of a polemic attack because we happen to disagree with your opinion. If the church makes an official apology for the blacks, will they also make one for the Canaanites? Same church, just a different era. What about the fact that the restoration was given to a white guy and not an Asian? Why were missionaries sent to England and not to Persia? More racism? This game can go on all day.

[Buckeye]

Yet the Church hasn't repented of the ban and still maintains that it was Divinely appointed.

Wrong. Read the press release again. Mark it in your calendar. Today - Leap Day 2012 - the church officially dropped any reference to "divinely appointed". Wasn't it you who just today said the newsroom is LDS doctrine?

"It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

[David T]

BCSPACE, I think you're big on pointing out that latest trumps old, even if old is still on the website.

Latest says "we don't know why" the policy was there. Nowhere does it affirm or defend that it was divine. It allows for it, but does not argue for it.

[Zeta-Flux]

C.F.R.

Only revelation we have on record from God is in ending the terrible ban. If we go by what we have on record directly said to be from God, He doesn't appear to have been a big fan of it.

More correctly: The only revelation we have on record from God, which was sustained in General Conference, concerns the end of the ban. Of course, part of that revelation talked about the long awaited day, which had been previously revealed, that the ban would be removed.

We do have other revelations on record from God, which were not sustained in General Conference.

[Zeta-Flux]

The reason for "altering" it was to let you know what I understood oyu to have meant. Neither your post, nor the one to which you replied, nor the combination, was clear.

So, what did you mean that the Church ["they"] condemn as racist?

Zeta-flux said: "If it was "racist" the current church condemns it."

You said: "Good point. And they just did."

Context is important, and it was lacking. What else could you have meant?

Lehi

The "it" in my post was "previous teachings". I agree with Lehi that the ban was not racist (as such).

[Mortal Man]

The Africa Americans were, due to circumstances largely outside of their control, uneducated and poorly conditioned. Had they been embraced and allowed to join in great numbers, the church would have suffered from the challenges it had at the start: too many uneducated and socially backward people causing too many problems. I do not want to suggest that the African Americans were or are socially backward but, coming from a culture of slavery and oppression, it would have been a lot of baggage to overcome for a church that was already struggling to gain a foot hold. So I am not making a comparison with the uncouth nature of the early members with the nature of the African Americans other than to say that the latter did have some challenges that the Church was not equipped to address.

"Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty, is past our comprehension. Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society, of both the north and the south! Let the blacks of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life-endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets-our prisons filled with convicts, and the hang-man wearied with executing the functions of his office! This must unavoidably be the case, every rational man must admit, who have ever travelled [traveled] in the slave states, or we must open our houses, unfold our arms, and bid these degraded and degrading sons of Canaan, a hearty welcome and a free admittance to all we possess! A society of this nature, to us, is so intolerably degrading, that the bare reflection causes our feelings to recoil, and our hearts to revolt." -- Joseph Smith, Messenger and Advocate, April 1836.

[ilyan]

Perhaps we are only seeing this issue from an incomplete perspective. We do not know what Heavenly Father knows. The issue of blacks being denied the priesthood may have nothing to do with anything they did or did not do in mortality. Perhaps it has something to do with their roles or their choices in the pre-mortal conflict. We tend to assume that whenever someone is denied something for a time, that it is a result of some sin or misdeed on their part. But that is not always the case. The earth was cursed for Adam's sake, yet Adam made the correct choice when he ate the forbidden fruit. The curse placed on the earth as a result of Adam's choice was not to destroy Adam, but to allow him to grow spiritually. Is it possible that the fact that blacks were denied the priesthood was to protect them from the condemnation that would have come upon them if they had attempted to misuse it in their various cultural practices? They were not always denied the priesthood. They have it available to them now both among the living and the dead.

May it also have been a measure used by Heavenly Father to weed out those in his church who are prejudice against blacks? No one can rightfully claim to be a disciple of Christ and harbor prejudice against someone because of skin color. How many otherwise upstanding members took issue with church leaders over the matter in 1978 and beyond? How many will take issue when, later in our day, we are invited or instructed to begin living the law of consecration, or the law of polygamy? I would guess even more people will be weeded out when faced with applying a doctrine they have only heard about, but have not yet been required to apply in their personal lives. The church is still true, even when it requires you to adjust your mind to accept something that you don't agree with.

ebooksscifi. wordpress.com

earthsink.blogspot.com

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

*facedesk*

[LeSellers]

Because he allows all men their agency, including the Prophets. It is canonized doctrine that God allowed Joseph to err with respect to the 116 pages. Why can't it be possible that he allowed subsequent leaders to err on the racial ban?

Because, no later than 1956 (aIr), President M^cKay asked that the denial of priesthood blessing to black Africans be lifted. God did not give permission then. All subsequent prophets repeated that request, and He still did not lift it. Only in 1978 did He do so.

He could have done it any time in the past.

Brigham Young wished to trade places with a corpse in a hearse, rather than practice Plural Marriage, but did so anyway, because it was the will of God. Do you really think he would have instituted the temporary denial had God told him not to? Do you actually believe that Brigham instituted it by himself, without consulting the Lord?

I'm all for recognizing the falibility of men, including prophets, but they do not take this sort of thing on themselves. President Kimball prayted in the Temple for mor than 45 minutes about lifting it, I have a hard time seeing Brigham putting it in place without at least as much confirmation.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

BCSPACE, I think you're big on pointing out that latest trumps old, even if old is still on the website.

I would say a web site like the Church's is almost constantly up to date, to within days or minutes. And anything published thereon, especially in that context, is the latest and greatest.

So we have the LDS Church, right on it's front page, offering you the chance to study it's doctrines by topic and lo, the topic says:

Ever since biblical times, the Lord has designated through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi were given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Likewise, during the Savior’s earthly ministry, gospel blessings were restricted to the Jews. Only after a revelation to the Apostle Peter were the gospel and priesthood extended to others (see Acts 10:1–33; 14:23; 15:6– .

I am a nonmember, curious about the Church. I am referred to lds.org. I go there. I am computer savy and so I pull down the Menu. ON the Menu I see "Study by Topic". So I do. Now the Church's doctrine doesn't change much, including this one. Nevertheless, the Church is going to have it's latest and greatest front and center. There is NOTHING any post 1978 prophet has said to gainsay or change what is quoted above.

Edited February 29, 2012 by BCSpace

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles." (Elder Bruce R. McConkie, CES Religious Educators Symposium, 18 August 1978)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Please point out where Christ and Peter's instruction to bring the gospel to all nations and peoples included the caveat, "Except black African people. They're cursed. They're not allowed to be part of a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people."

Even if you believe there was a Cain who was cursed with black skin, and his family mixed with Ham's family, and then they kept this awful curse going, then what possible reason can you justify for it being continued beyond the Christian era?

You are missing the point. The fact that before that time not every one could join.

[Freedom]

"Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty, is past our comprehension. Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society, of both the north and the south! Let the blacks of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life-endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets-our prisons filled with convicts, and the hang-man wearied with executing the functions of his office! This must unavoidably be the case, every rational man must admit, who have ever travelled [traveled] in the slave states, or we must open our houses, unfold our arms, and bid these degraded and degrading sons of Canaan, a hearty welcome and a free admittance to all we possess! A society of this nature, to us, is so intolerably degrading, that the bare reflection causes our feelings to recoil, and our hearts to revolt." -- Joseph Smith, Messenger and Advocate, April 1836.

Yes, Joseph felt this way but God may have seen things differently for his church.The blacks gained freedom, cultural biases faded away, and the church was then ready to extend to all groups. But as I stated, this is a possible explanation of why God allowed it to continue.