stemelbow Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Johnny is skilled in sophistry and subterfuge.If so, I would say no moreso than some of the faithful who post here. 1
rockpond Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 I have an new FB friend who reached out ot me in response to a post I made on another board regarding the + and -'s of seving a mission. He is an 18 year old prospective missionary of African decent. We had a good positive conversation regarding missions and I beleive I was fair and honest...and encouraged him to serve if that was his desire....but also told him that ultimatly the choice is his and his alone.He then asked me if he could ask me a question...he then asked me if it was true that Blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood at one time. I was dumbfounded that he had not been taught from his youth of this difficulty. I confirmed that they had in fact been banned prior to 1978. He said that he stumbled on this information while doing some research for a church talk and had asked his bishop and Stake President for clarification. They condemend him for seeking out anti-Mormon lies and told him that it was all a lie that had been made against the church by anti-mormons. I was flabergasted by their ignorance on this issue. I do not know the race of his Bishop and Stake President.When I confirmed that his leaders were misinformed...that Blacks of African decent and only african decent had been banned from the holding the priesthood from 1845 to 1978 he was gobsmacked as to why the church would hide this informatin from him...a life long believing member.He would like some reliable reading material on the history of the ban and the reasons behind it. In my desire to be fair and balanced I'm coming here to ask for material, articles etc that I can pass along to him. I will not accept or pass long anything that is not honest and truthful regarding this difficult issue...so please just offer honest truthful imformation. Itsn't there a good article in Dialogue from some time ago that was influencial with President Kimball on this subject?Thanks for your assistanceLester Bush's historical overview is a good place to understand how the priesthood & temple ban began, why it continued, and some of the reasons behind it:http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V08N01_13.pdf 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) Johnny is skilled in sophistry and subterfuge.I am not entirely convinced that we have all of the dialogue that took place from the OP.Could the words "Those are Anti-Mormon lies" happened in conversation with the black member and his leadership? Yeah. Did it happen with regards to the preisthood ban? I seriously and highly doubt it. Edited June 17, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Nevo Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) [Angry retort withdrawn] Edited June 17, 2013 by Nevo
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 And ERayR is skilled in name-calling and contributing nothing at all to the discussion.Cool story bro.
cinepro Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 I am not entirely convinced that we have all of the dialogue that took place from the OP.Could the works "Those are Anti-Mormon lies" happened in conversation with the black member and his leadership? Yeah. Did it happen with regards to the preisthood ban? I seriously and highly doubt it.Any time I see the accusation of "anti-Mormon lies", I chuckle to think that the only reason an anti-Mormon would tell "lies" is because he hasn't figured out he can do much more damage by telling the truth. 3
thesometimesaint Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Not so much. There has never been a prohibition on blacks from hearing the gospel or from joining the Church. Moreover not having the Priesthood in this life is no bar from having it in the next.
rockpond Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Not so much. There has never been a prohibition on blacks from hearing the gospel or from joining the Church. Moreover not having the Priesthood in this life is no bar from having it in the next.Being prohibited from the saving temple ordinances however... But, I guess we'll eventually take care of that through proxy work.
thesometimesaint Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 That would apply to every one ever has lived on this earth, but didn't have the opportunity in this life to go to the Temple.BTW Children whom died before the age of eight have no need for the Temple, other than to be Sealed to their parents.
stemelbow Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Not so much. There has never been a prohibition on blacks from hearing the gospel or from joining the Church. Moreover not having the Priesthood in this life is no bar from having it in the next.True. But it can't surprise us if modern folks don't find this explanation all that satisfying in and of itself.BTW handsome profile pic. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted June 17, 2013 Author Posted June 17, 2013 Lester Bush's historical overview is a good place to understand how the priesthood & temple ban began, why it continued, and some of the reasons behind it:http://www.dialoguej...e_V08N01_13.pdfthank you this is exactly what I was looking for
rockpond Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 thank you this is exactly what I was looking forThat article, however, was written pre-1978. So while it does an excellent job explaining why those of African descent were not allowed full fellowship in the church, it should be noted that the church no longer acknowledges the teachings quoted by Brother Bush. The new official position of the church is "we don't know" why the ban existed, we're just glad it was overturned.
Johnnie Cake Posted June 17, 2013 Author Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) I am not entirely convinced that we have all of the dialogue that took place from the OP.Could the words "Those are Anti-Mormon lies" happened in conversation with the black member and his leadership? Yeah. Did it happen with regards to the preisthood ban? I seriously and highly doubt it.{Edited} Screw it...you don't deserved what I've just deleted... Edited June 17, 2013 by Johnnie Cake
cinepro Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 That would apply to every one ever has lived on this earth, but didn't have the opportunity in this life to go to the Temple.Someone growing up in the middle of China and never having the chance to go to the Temple is not the equivalent of stopping a faithful, worthy, baptized member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the door of the Temple and telling them they cannot enter because of their presumed African descent. 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 {Edited} Screw it...you don't deserved what I've just deleted...Cool story bro.There seems to be alot of that going on around here.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Any time I see the accusation of "anti-Mormon lies", I chuckle to think that the only reason an anti-Mormon would tell "lies" is because he hasn't figured out he can do much more damage by telling the truth.Ha that is funny.
Palerider Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 {Edited} Screw it...you don't deserved what I've just deleted...Johnnie, when visiting the junkyard looking for a few clean used parts, don't be surprised at being jumped by the attack dogs. In this organization all of your past devotion means zip. You're only as good as your last performance.
rpn Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 I don't know if anyone has mentioned the trilogy Standing on the Promises by Margaret Young and Darius Gray. It is a well referenced fictionalized (we don't have original words very much) story of the history of Blacks in the church.Also http://blacksinthescriptures.com/And I think you have your dates wrong about how long it lasted. Elijah Able was ordained by Joseph Smith or at his direction and he served a mission for the church in his original mission field in Ohio, in the 1870's. Nathaniel Lewis, a very prominent priesthood holder in Massachusetts came to visit Utah in the 1850's (he returned to MA, and left the church, so it must not have been a good visit).
rockpond Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 And I think you have your dates wrong about how long it lasted.I'm not sure that the exact dates are all that important. I don't think that anyone is disputing the fact that, with a small handful of exceptions, those of African descent were not permitted full fellowship in the church beginning under the Presidency of Brigham Young and continuing until 1978 when President Kimball received OD2.
Kevin Christensen Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Another essential read, for some broader context into Western Culture of which LDS culture was a small part, particularly with respect to the Biblical justification of slavery.https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7674FWIWKevin ChristensenBethel Park, PA 1
canard78 Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Let it be known that Johnnie Cake is not friendly to the LDS cause, if I recall correctly.If I am wrong, I apologizeJohnnie hasn't tried to hide his disaffection from the church. But, from what I can tell, tries to be balanced while maintaining his integrity. It seems a sincere question. 1
canard78 Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 I told him that the banned was limited to ONLY blacks of African decent not all blacks...this desturbed him greatly...I often find the fact that people hold up Polynesian black early ordination as a "good thing" to be a bit odd. We had a racist policy to a specific race.I can't stand the entire ban and do not consider it to be in any way inspired. This was not given through revelation. The ban was not God's will. The church was in error for over 100 years.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Johnnie, when visiting the junkyard looking for a few clean used parts, don't be surprised at being jumped by the attack dogs. In this organization all of your past devotion means zip. You're only as good as your last performance.Meet the mirror.Attack dog? Ok. That is a good one.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) When I confirmed that his leaders were misinformed...that Blacks of African decent and only african decent had been banned from the holding the priesthood from 1845 to 1978 he was gobsmacked as to why the church would hide this informatin from him...a life long believing member.Thanks for your assistanceLets be real for a second johnnie. I will admit to not being the most serious earlier. But I have a serious issue with how you posited this. You cannot be remotely serious that the church hid this from him. I mean It is in our scriptures under the previously mentioned OD 2. THere are several factors on this one issue that no reasonable person could conclude that this issue was hidden from him. I cannot let this one slip. Its one thing to mention that "no one ever told me that JS had a gun at carthage" Fine. But the priesthood ban? Really? Perhaps he was asleep during class when it was brought up? I dunno. Perhaps others were completely oblvious to it. I don't know. Right now all I have is your 2nd hand story to go off and I find it really hard to believe this. Can you see why I might take issue with your story? Any way I think others have offered some fine resources for you and your friend to look at. Good luck. Edited June 17, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
canard78 Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Not so much. There has never been a prohibition on blacks from hearing the gospel or from joining the Church. Moreover not having the Priesthood in this life is no bar from having it in the next.We had this conversation in the Joanna Brooks thread. At times Black members could not:- Hold a leadership calling (auxiliary presidencies)- Attend the temple in any form (including baptisms)- Pray in sacrament meetingI've said it before and will say it again. The ban was not inspired. There was no revelation to instigate it. The church was in error for over 100 years.
Recommended Posts