Need Help With Uninformed Black African Member

[Johnnie Cake]

I wish to clarify and edit my OP. I went back and reviewed my FB conversation. The young man in question was aware of the ban... It was the reasons for the ban that he was unaware of. He had been taught that it was due to African Blacks being ill prepared for priesthood participation....he was unaware of the racist reasons taught by church authorities for over 100 years to justify the ban. It was these church teachings his bishop, SP and seminary teacher called lies and the work of anti Mormons. I merely. Informed him that those teachings did in fact come from the church leaders and was the rhetoric of the day used to justify the racist policy

Edited June 18, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[why me]

I wish to clarify and edit my OP. I went back and reviewed my FB conversation. The young man in question was aware of the ban... It was the reasons for the ban that he was unaware of. He had been taught that it was due to African Blacks being ill prepared for priesthood participation....he was unaware of the racist reasons taught by church authorities for over 100 years to justify the ban. It was these church teachings his bishop, SP and seminary teacher called lies and the work of anti Mormons. I merely. Informed him that those teachings did in fact come from the church leaders and was the rhetoric of the day used to justify the racist policy

Hello Johnnie,

I think that posters have more or less wasted a lot of time due to your mistake. I would suggest in the future that more care is given to OPs. Some posters have claimed that they were surprised that the young man never heard of the ban. But what now? How to continue this thread?

But here is my take on it. Time moves quickly and people seem to forget very easy these days. I remember the ban and I remember the reasons that were batted around about it. I never heard these reasons given as doctrine and I never was taught anything about the priesthood ban when it was in place. But we all knew of it and what some authorities said about it. But I never heard it as doctrine. I suppose that for this young man, it would have been important to discuss what was being said at that time. And to understand the context what was america at that time. Once all is put in the correct context, one can possibly understand the reasons for the ban. It certainly was not about color and it seems that reasons for the ban had more to do about american culture and the problems of slavery etc. Unfortunately, time moves on and I suppose that there are now members who don't know about the ban. But then again, there are many americans who never heard of Nixon or Kennedy. Nor WWII or if they do know of this war, they think that the germans and russians were fighting on the same side. And for that matter I am sure that many americans don't know that Bill Clinton used to be president. Time seems to erase memories and knowledge. Such is history. The question becomes just how often we need to be reminded of it.

What should the church do about it? I suppose that the church should can its presidents' manuals and begin to teach history in the classroom. Unfortunately, this would need to be done every year. In fact, for the critics, nothing but yearly history lessons going over all the controversial points in lds history each year is what the church needs to do. For after all, if such lessons are given for just one year, ten years later critics will be claiming that the church is hiding its history. So, the lds need to learn their history every year and be tested on it. And each investigator will need to go through a church history lesson taught by a critic.

Edited June 18, 2013 by why me

[cinepro]

I wish to clarify and edit my OP. I went back and reviewed my FB conversation. The young man in question was aware of the ban... It was the reasons for the ban that he was unaware of. He had been taught that it was due to African Blacks being ill prepared for priesthood participation....he was unaware of the racist reasons taught by church authorities for over 100 years to justify the ban. It was these church teachings his bishop, SP and seminary teacher called lies and the work of anti Mormons. I merely. Informed him that those teachings did in fact come from the church leaders and was the rhetoric of the day used to justify the racist policy

That makes a lot more sense.

I think the best thing to do would be to send your friend this quote from Elder Holland (made in an interview for the PBS show about the Church). The bolded parts are the questions, followed by Elder Holland's responses:

Where were you when you heard that the ban was lifted on blacks in the priesthood?

I can remember exactly where I was. For us that's the "where we [were] when Kennedy was shot," this deep, deep, spiritual, emotional moment in the history of the church. I was a very young commissioner of education, still in my 30s, and I was coming over from my office in the church office building to the suite of General Authority offices for something or other. ... I walked into the office of the General Authority I was going to see, and he said, "Have you heard the news?" This was barely moments out of the temple meeting and the announcement where it was official. And I said: "What news? I haven't heard any news." And he said all worthy men -- regardless of race or status or circumstance -- all worthy men are to receive priesthood.

You're going to think all I do is cry, but this is in the same family as that missionary experience I described to you. I started to cry, and I was absolutely uncontrollable. I felt my way to a chair ... and I sort of slumped from the doorway into the chair and held my head, my face in my hands and sobbed. ...

There's no issue in all my life that I had prayed more regarding -- praying that it would change, praying that it would come in due time. I was willing to have the Lord speak, and I was loyal to the position and the brethren and the whole concept, but there was nothing about which I had anguished more or about which I had prayed more. And for that to be said in my lifetime, when I wasn't sure it would happen in my lifetime, ... it was one of the absolute happiest days of my life. ...

I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

[Palerider]

Hello Johnnie,

"I never heard these reasons given as doctrine and I never was taught anything about the priesthood ban when it was in place. But we all knew of it and what some authorities said about it. But I never heard it as doctrine."

Having been a missionary in the early 70's it was my task, relatively often, to defend the ban that was definitely taught to us as doctrine.

Of course we used Abraham 1:25-27 as our proof text:

"25 Now the first ^agovernment of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that ^aorder established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the ^bblessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharoahs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;"

"Nor WWII or if they do know of this war, they think that the germans and russians were fighting on the same side."

Actually they did have a non-agression pact for the first half of the war, which was later broken by Hitler. One could say with some validity that for the first half of the war they were on the same side.

What should the church do about it? I suppose that the church should can its presidents' manuals and begin to teach history in the classroom. Unfortunately, this would need to be done every year. In fact, for the critics, nothing but yearly history lessons going over all the controversial points in lds history each year is what the church needs to do. For after all, if such lessons are given for just one year, ten years later critics will be claiming that the church is hiding its history. So, the lds need to learn their history every year and be tested on it. And each investigator will need to go through a church history lesson taught by a critic.

Once every three years or so would probably suffice........

Edited June 18, 2013 by Palerider

[canard78]

I see John Dehlin has perpetuated this mistake all over the Internet, but "Black Pete" and William McCary were two different people. McCary's antics appear to have helped precipitate the priesthood ban. "Black Pete," on the other hand, was a figure from the earliest days of the Church in Kirtland (Dale Broadhurst, a former poster here, once notoriously suggested that Joseph Smith had him murdered). "Black Pete" was an interesting character and is treated at length in Mark Staker's excellent book, Hearken O Ye People.

Thanks for the correction, I've taken him off the timeline.

[why me]

Once every three years or so would probably suffice........

I don't remember it taught as doctrine. However, i do remember Abraham being used. But nowhere was it taught as doctrine in priesthood meetings or in sunday school. How you were told to address it on your mission is quite another thing.

Maybe other churches should teach their history every three years too to their members but then again, most members are probably not interested.

So every three years we learn about Joseph and polygamy and his wives, we learn about the priesthood ban and MMM. And we learn about the various first vision accounts with lds interpretations of these events etc. And these classes are mandatory for all members both young and old. We can start with primary kids learning church history every year. And should we also learn the critic points of view? Perhaps there should be an exam at the end of the course.

I find it amazing just how weak lds testimonies are that the church needs to school members in their history for fear that they may leave the faith if they discover something on the internet.

I have never met a catholic who left their church because of the Inquisition etc. Nor a lutheran because of luther's anti jewish comments. .I am not even sure if most of the catholics and lutherans know about it or even care.

Edited June 18, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Actually they did have a non-agression pact for the first half of the war, which was later broken by Hitler. One could say with some validity that for the first half of the war they were on the same side.

Once every three years or so would probably suffice........

Actually, a non aggression pact does not mean that they fought on the same side. It meant that they would not declare war against the other. And of course, Hitler broke the pact with his invasion of the soviet union. However, now we can see the problem with history. Every one has an interpretation and this will also be the case with church history. So, should we be debating church history in priesthood or in sunday school? Would the critics be happy with lds interpretations? History can be very sectarian and confrontational when discussed.

[canard78]

I find it amazing just how weak lds testimonies are that the church needs to school members in their history for fear that they may leave the faith if they discover something on the internet.

My testimony was one of absolute conviction and certainty up to 'discover something on the internet.' It's a little wearing to hear people persistently suggest that a faith crisis only happens to people with "weak lds testimonies."

I have never met a catholic who left their church because of the Inquisition etc. Nor a lutheran because of luther's anti jewish comments. .I am not even sure if most of the catholics and lutherans know about it or even care.

I'm sure all religous people have to deal with doubt, contradictions and uncertainties.

Here's an example from British Anglicans. This was broadcast on a Sunday morning national radio show. We've nothing on the CofE people. A church founded by a womanising tyrant with many wives (two of which he beheaded). Not even Joseph can have that last issue laid at his door

Thomas, one of Jesus’ 12 disciples knew what he wanted to do with his doubts. His other friends had told him that they had seen Jesus, risen from the grave and alive. For Thomas they were either lying or delusional. ‘My doubt will die’, he said, ‘when and if I can put my finger in the marks of the nails which held him to the cross until he died, and put my hand into the spear wound in his side which was intended to guarantee that the body hanging there really was dead. I want irrefutable proof, and then I’ll believe’.

Where do doubts go to die? From the experience of Christians throughout the centuries it seems that doubts never completely die. There is always just one more child that gets sick and God should have stopped it from happening; one more accident, one more natural disaster which makes people ask, ‘Where’s God? If he exists at all’.

Michael Novak, the American novelist and diplomat writes, ‘Doubt is not so much a dividing line that separates people into different camps, as it is a razor’s edge which runs through every soul’. Believers doubt their beliefs. Unbelievers doubt their unbelief. A man told me recently, ‘I’m an atheist’, he said, ‘but I have my doubts’.

...

At its heart faith is a matter of trust. Doubt can be the enemy of trust or, properly used, it can become the friend of trust. As an enemy, it can stop us from becoming committed to anyone or anything. For that reason some people love it and hold on to the principle of doubt. That can so easily excuse us from having to make the tough decisions of life.

Yet as a friend, doubt can help me in the search for truth and certainty. I’m not the first person to ask the question, ‘Who made God?’ Theologians, philosophers and Christian apologists have been wrestling with the great questions of life throughout the centuries. Many have worked through these kind of issues and are persuaded to believe.

...

Doubt has been described as the shadow side of faith. It gives it perspective and makes it stand out. But shadows are at their longest when the sun is closest to the horizon. When the sun is overhead then there are hardly any shadows at all. That compares precisely to our spiritual experience. When we keep Jesus at the margins of our lives then the shadows of doubt and confusion are at their longest. When he is ‘overhead’, close by, then the shadows are at their least. This was surely Thomas’ experience. He was so fortunate to be able to have his doubts eradicated by one single momentous experience.

Yes, we need to look at the evidence to decide if we find it convincing. Yes, we need to open ourselves to an experience of God, so that we can be fully persuaded. However difficult the issues are, we are the ones who make the decision either to commit ourselves to the risk or to hold back, either to continue to work through the issues or to walk away. Interestingly, despite all of the complexities associated with faith Jesus never said to his hearers, ‘Believe my arguments’, but he did say, ‘Follow me’.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rqgyx

For Catholics, I had a friend who regularly wrestled with the value she got 'today' from being Catholic vs the angst of knowing what happened in the past.

Being a Catholic, as in any religion, may mean having doubts and questions. Many times we don't know where to begin or the opportunity simply doesn't present itself. Whatever the reason may be, here is a guide to search for answers to those doubts.

1 Establish the nature of your doubt. Does the question relate to death, Mary's virginity, life after death or why other religions exist etc? Write your doubts on a piece of paper and later examine them and analyze whether they are really what you wish to ask.

2 Go to the source. Study the Bible for answers to your questions. A concordance can be helpful. Hand in hand with this is a study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is a book published by the Vatican outlining all the beliefs of the Catholic Faith. It is a great reference, and if you are looking for an answer, backed up by Biblical proof, it is there.

3 Go to the "real" source. To God. Pray for guidance in your search for answers and ask Him to lead you to texts, people, and information that can help you clarify your beliefs.

4 Look to your parents. If you are young and you still live with your parents, you may find it helpful to talk to them if they are also Catholic. Even if you don't live with your parents, it is possible that you will have more confidence talking to them than to others.

5 Seek out the priest in your parish and request an appointment. Contact the office of the church and ask when you can arrange to speak with the priest. You will need time to ask all that you want, so it's best to make an appointment. The priest will be glad to see you.

6 Look for a specialist. If your doubts relate to a special subject such as angelology, New Testament apocrypha, lateral interpretations of the scriptures, or versions of the Bible, it is probable that you will have to look further. Look to the bishop of your city or to the nearest seminary. There you will find specialists giving classes or, if you're lucky, having a bit of coffee and with a bit of free time.

7 Consider talking to a non-Catholic pastor or believer. They may have a different perspective on the issue.

8 Compare responses. Ask the priest in your neighborhood, the archbishop, a seminarian, a nun, or a pastor. It's quite likely you'll get different answers. Find the answer to the problem and go from there

9 Realize that the Catholic Church's claim to be two thousand years old is not without its advantages. Over these years, every group holding positions opinions from the Catholic Church (from atheists to fundamentalists, those on the left to those on the right) have made their objections known, and the Catholic Church has always offered answers. The internet is full of resources in the area of Catholic apologetics.

And:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/8-tips-for-catholics-with-doubts/

[cdowis]

I have never met a catholic who left their church because of the Inquisition etc. Nor a lutheran because of luther's anti jewish comments. .I am not even sure if most of the catholics and lutherans know about it or even care.

I wonder how many Southern Baptists would be disturbed if they found out about the history of their church relative to slavery. Perhaps someone should make a movie about this.

The Southern Baptist Convention issued an apology for its earlier stance on slavery. The issue had split the Baptist church between north and south in 1845. But a century and a half later, in 1995, Southern Baptist officials formally renounced the church's support of slavery and segregation. Richard Land, former head of the Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission, gives more information on the historic apology.

http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=112329862

Edited June 18, 2013 by cdowis

[Kevin Christensen]

1847-1978 is a long time by anyone's reckoning.

March 1836: Elijah Abel ordained an Elder by Joseph Smith Jr. (Eunice Kinney: “My Testimony of the Latter-day Work”).

1847: Parley P. Pratt "a black man with the blood of Ham in him which lineage was cursed as regards the priesthood." (This is My Doctrine, p. 388)

1852: Wilford Woodruff, quoting Brigham Young "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood"

(Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97)

1853 : Elijah Abel not allowed by Brigham Young to receive his endowment.

October 9, 1859: Brigham Young:

"How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion."

Talk in the Tabernacle, Journal of Discourses 7:282

March 8, 1863: Brigham Young,

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

Talk in the Tabernacle, Journal of Discourses 10:109

This timeline neglects the larger culture which, IMHO, is essential for understanding what happened and why, and where these notions came from. That is why I typically cite this essay on the history of the interpretation of Noah's Curse:

https://byustudies.b...aspx?title=7674

It should be recognized that the attitudes did not originate in Mormon culture, but arose long before as part of a cultural mythos that was invented to rationalize and perpetuate the slave trade. Treating the issue as though Mormon thinkers invented it, or got it from revelation, leads to misunderstanding.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 18, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I wish to clarify and edit my OP. I went back and reviewed my FB conversation. The young man in question was aware of the ban... It was the reasons for the ban that he was unaware of. He had been taught that it was due to African Blacks being ill prepared for priesthood participation....he was unaware of the racist reasons taught by church authorities for over 100 years to justify the ban. It was these church teachings his bishop, SP and seminary teacher called lies and the work of anti Mormons. I merely. Informed him that those teachings did in fact come from the church leaders and was the rhetoric of the day used to justify the racist policy

Thank you for the clarification. I can see this. I offer a sincere apology for being sarcastic earlier. I do realize that I was not very Christ like.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

I wasn't happy about the Ban. It nearly stopped me from becoming a member back in 1971. It was a difficult time, with hard choices to make. I'm happy with my decision, and happier still when the Ban was removed.

Ps. Handsome is as handsome does.

Edited June 18, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

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.

Was Christ's ban on not going to the non Jews Gods' will?

[Johnnie Cake]

Thank you for the clarification. I can see this. I offer a sincere apology for being sarcastic earlier. I do realize that I was not very Christ like.

Accepted...thx

[Johnnie Cake]

It broke my heart that this young man called the ban. "The Curse of Cain". It was a terrible policy and no matter the reasons for it or why it took so long to change the policy...Im just glad that its no longer practiced.

And for "why me". Personally (not that my opinion matters or carries any weight). I believe the healing needed will only come when the church leaders, just as they did with Adam-God, acknowledge it as false doctrine, a mistaken policy and express deep remorse for all the pain to generations of black Africans felt due to the false policy. Isn't that the method taught when seeking forgiveness?

Edited June 18, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[thesometimesaint]

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 meeting

I'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.

There is no requirement to hold any calling, attend the Temple, or pray in Sacrament meeting and still receive the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. Was Christ in error when he banned non Jews from the gospel?

[thesometimesaint]

Where in OD2?

OD2 does not mention men of African descent. It doesn't mention the priesthood ban nor does it mention that they were denied access to temple ordinances.

Yes it does.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

"Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness".

[thesometimesaint]

It broke my heart that this young man called the ban. "The Curse of Cain". It was a terrible policy and no matter the reasons for it or why it took so long to change the policy...Im just glad that its no longer practiced.

And for "why me". Personally (not that my opinion matters or carries any weight). I believe the healing needed will only come when the church leaders, just as they did with Adam-God, acknowledge it as false doctrine, a mistaken policy and express deep remorse for all the pain to generations of black Africans felt due to the false policy. Isn't that the method taught when seeking forgiveness?

That has already been done.

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570

[rockpond]

Yes it does.

https://www.lds.org/...t/od/2?lang=eng

"Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness".

I stated: "OD2 does not mention men of African descent. It doesn't mention the priesthood ban nor does it mention that they were denied access to temple ordinances."

And it does not. You would have to read between the lines or know other information when reading OD2 to understand that those of African descent were banned from holding the priesthood and from receiving temple ordinances.

[cdowis]

It broke my heart that this young man called the ban. "The Curse of Cain". It was a terrible policy and no matter the reasons for it or why it took so long to change the policy...Im just glad that its no longer practiced.

Yep, and the ban on the priesthood for only Levites, the ban on marrying non-Israelites, the ban on preaching to the Gentiles were also horrific, right?

How sad that people judge God by their narrow, mortal minds.

[rockpond]

I find it amazing just how weak lds testimonies are that the church needs to school members in their history for fear that they may leave the faith if they discover something on the internet.

I don't think that's really the issue.

I believe the issue lies with how ardently we teach that our church is lead by a man who is being instructed of the Lord on how to run the church. Further, we believe that the apostles are also prophets, seers, and revelators. When you grow up with that conviction -- basing your faith on the words of these men -- it become (potentially) testimony shattering to find out that what they have taught is wrong or that it contradicts some of your most deeply held moral convictions.

[thesometimesaint]

I stated: "OD2 does not mention men of African descent. It doesn't mention the priesthood ban nor does it mention that they were denied access to temple ordinances."

And it does not. You would have to read between the lines or know other information when reading OD2 to understand that those of African descent were banned from holding the priesthood and from receiving temple ordinances.

You must not be reading the same OD2 I am.

[rockpond]

You must not be reading the same OD2 I am.

Nope. We're reading the same OD2. You quoted it.

It says the priesthood was withheld from some. In the next paragraph it states that all worthy males can now hold the priesthood without regard to race or color.

But it doesn't speak to the specific denial of priesthood and temple ordinances to those of African descent. You'd have to go elsewhere for that information.

It also does not speak to the various doctrine that got put forward over the 100+ years prior to President Kimball's revelation.

Edited June 18, 2013 by rockpond

[Calm]

I believe the healing needed will only come when the church leaders, just as they did with Adam-God, acknowledge it as false doctrine, a mistaken policy and express deep remorse for all the pain to generations of black Africans felt due to the false policy.

Which will require a revelation to do so as the farther we get from that time period, the less prone imo will prophets and leaders be to dismiss what was taught (the ban...not anything else which I feel is in a different category than the ban) on such a major scale based on their own opinions drawn from tradition and reason.

[thesometimesaint]

Nope. We're reading the same OD2. You quoted it.

It says the priesthood was withheld from some. In the next paragraph it states that all worthy males can now hold the priesthood without regard to race or color.

But it doesn't speak to the specific denial of priesthood and temple ordinances to those of African descent. You'd have to go elsewhere for that information.

It also does not speak to the various doctrine that got put forward over the 100+ years prior to President Kimball's revelation.

Yes it does: ...and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple.

Why would it be desirable, let alone necessary, to address any/every false idea that some may have had?