When Did Other Church's Ordain Black Men To The Priesthood?

[mfbukowski]

I disagree, the temple matron has no authority or ability to make rules without President approval.   That is not parallel.

Let's just say that, as in any marriage, these matters are decided between married couples, as it should be.  Each has as much "authority" as they unitedly decide to give each other.  I am sure of course that you ask your husband for permission to do most things, and that is why you think all women do.

 

In my experience, women rule the roost in practice.  But perhaps that is because I am a wimp.

[3DOP]

The issue is that you are using the same word to describe two very different things.  Are you able to see that the LDS priesthood is not the same thing as Catholic priesthood, for example.  You simply cannot compare the two, regardless of your view whether they are authorized by God.  A Catholic priest is an occupation, a career which normally requires formal training, so how can you talk about whether blacks are eligible for the priesthood "before" the LDS allowed it?

 

I would have to object to the characterization of the Catholic priesthood as a mere occupation or career. Among other sacrifices, the Catholic priest sacrifices career opportunities if he accepts a priestly calling. The Catholic priesthood is a calling, not a career. My son is currently half way through seven years of seminary formation and my son-in-law completed four years before it was determined that he was not called to the priesthood. In speaking with both of them, one with aspirations, and another with former aspirations, one knows does not know for sure that they are called by God to the priesthood until the bishop places his hands on their heads. In other words, at ordination one knows one's calling. That is beside the point I would make about the question asked by Duncan.   

 

It seems to me that the opening thread is reasonably clear as to the question being asked. For those churches that have priestly/ministerial ordinations, did they ever exclude anyone on the basis of race? It seems significant to me that Catholic blacks seem to have been excluded from the opportunity to train for priestly ministry in parts of the pre Civil War United States. As I said above, I am not particularly proud of the Catholic record in America, but even in the U.S. the Church always accepted the possibility for ordinations for blacks.

 

That is the question being asked. Under the worst circumstances, I admit that if I were LDS, the problem ought not shake my faith. There is no need in my opinion to try to skirt the issue from an LDS perspective. It seems to me that we are probably a century or more away from being able to discuss this question unemotionally, but posterity will thank those of us who penetrate to the heart of the matter now, without letting our religious biases or racial indignation get the better of our reason. I have what I consider much sounder reasons for refraining from becoming LDS than this easily dodged dart that will be forgotten in five hundred to a thousand years, if the Lord tarries His coming.

 

3DOP 

Edited December 31, 2013 by 3DOP

[BlueDreams]

I think it was just more hidden.  If one is prevented from that call, it signals an underbelly of overall exclusion.  Without access to the decision making positions, blacks had no say in the practice of their religion... or their treatment.

 

Some of it may have been more hidden, but some of it was pretty overt and institutionalized as well...there's simply not a good parallel for a number of these practices in the LDS church. For example Churches were often used to spiritually legitimize slavery. Captured Africans were taken to the americas, they had to be baptized before being loaded onto slave ships. There's nothing to really match up this within the LDS church due to a very different context. Generally, the people were pretty religious and had varying degrees of hierarchical valuing to humanity based on race. They often defended, supported, and buffered these beliefs through religious beliefs, iconography, and sanctions in differing ways. 

 

 

 

With luv,

BD   

Edited December 31, 2013 by BlueDreams

[cdowis]

And of course women perform ordinances in the temple, paralleling the ordinances for the men.

 

In fact and practice, the temple Matron runs the "sister's side" as much as the President runs the men's.  It's like two different systems of administration running in parallel.

 

Absolutely, we were told very specifically that the sisters were in charge of their side of things.  It gave me a new respect on how the church views the "sister side of things" -- we are equal.

[Duncan]

The issue is that you are using the same word to describe two very different things.  Are you able to see that the LDS priesthood is not the same thing as Catholic priesthood, for example.  You simply cannot compare the two, regardless of your view whether they are authorized by God.  A Catholic priest is an occupation, a career which normally requires formal training, so how can you talk about whether blacks are eligible for the priesthood "before" the LDS allowed it?

 

 

yeah, that's what I was saying is that in the LDS church you can hold the priesthood without being a minister or Bishop but in other Church you can be a minister but not hold the priesthood. Some Churches I am finding think that Christ is the only one who has it and was the last High Priest or something, so their ministers don't have any authority as they say it but have official things to do in their church. I guess in one way some Church's too haven't yet ordained black men to the priesthood even though they have and have had black men as ministers

Edited December 31, 2013 by Duncan

[cdowis]

I would have to object to the characterization of the Catholic priesthood as a mere occupation or career.

 

Objection noted.

 

Among other sacrifices, the Catholic priest sacrifices career opportunities if he accepts a priestly calling. The Catholic priesthood is a calling, not a career.

 

OK, so we disagree on the definition of "career" and "calling".  So help me to understand ==>>, is a surgeon a career or a calling by your definition?  Now, regarding "sacrifice", if someone commits themselves to become a surgeon, with many years of education and internship, they have "sacrificed" alternative career choices. 

 

 

My son is currently half way through seven years of seminary formation and my son-in-law completed four years before it was determined that he was not called to the priesthood. In speaking with both of them, one with aspirations, and another with former aspirations, one knows does not know for sure that they are called by God to the priesthood until the bishop places his hands on their heads. In other words, at ordination one knows one's calling. That is beside the point I would make about the question asked by Duncan. 

 

OK, in the middle of training for a surgeon, the person decides they are no longer interested, (not "called" to that career) and find something else. Is a surgeon a career or a calling?

 

Please help me understand.  For me the comparison between the Catholic priesthood and a medical career is compelling.

Edited January 1, 2014 by cdowis

[theplains]

But it seems to me like if were LDS, I would not be shaken if it so happened that Latter-day revelation taught the Ham theory. Would it be impossible for Mormons today to say that the time limit, as it were, had run its course, and the Ham theory...er "Ham fact", was therefore overturned in due course in 1978?

 

Read a book called "The Way to Perfection" by Joseph Fielding Smith. The 'Ham'

teaching seemed to be the prevalent view in the early Mormon era. However, the

modern LDS Church has never branded it as a false teaching which led many

astray who believed it.

 

Regards,

Jim

[halconero]

I would have to object to the characterization of the Catholic priesthood as a mere occupation or career.

Objection noted.

Among other sacrifices, the Catholic priest sacrifices career opportunities if he accepts a priestly calling. The Catholic priesthood is a calling, not a career.

OK, so we disagree on the definition of "career" and "calling". So help me to understand ==>>, is a surgeon a career or a calling by your definition? Now, regarding "sacrifice", if someone commits themselves to become a surgeon, with many years of education and internship, they have "sacrificed" alternative career choices.

My son is currently half way through seven years of seminary formation and my son-in-law completed four years before it was determined that he was not called to the priesthood. In speaking with both of them, one with aspirations, and another with former aspirations, one knows does not know for sure that they are called by God to the priesthood until the bishop places his hands on their heads. In other words, at ordination one knows one's calling. That is beside the point I would make about the question asked by Duncan.

OK, in the middle of training for a surgeon, the person decides they are no longer interested, (not "called" to that career) and find something else. Is a surgeon a career or a calling?

Please help me understand. For me the comparison between the Catholic priesthood and a medical career is compelling.

Arguing for 3D0P, I can see Catholics viewing service in the priesthood as something akin to what we would call consecration. The catholic priest dedicates his life to the ministry, and in return has his needs met. Formal training is seen as necessary for such dedication.

[cdowis]

Arguing for 3D0P, I can see Catholics viewing service in the priesthood as something akin to what we would call consecration. The catholic priest dedicates his life to the ministry, and in return has his needs met. Formal training is seen as necessary for such dedication.

 

Fair enough, but the point remains that there is a fundamental difference between the priesthood in the LDS church and most other churches.  

 

Again, because the assumption in the OP is fundamentally flawed, it's a loaded question == it would lead to a misleading conclusion.  

 

It's similar to asking the question "Do Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers".

Edited January 1, 2014 by cdowis

[3DOP]

halconero, thanks for arguing for me.

 

That is a great habit to cultivate.

 

cdowis...I have to think about the surgeon/priest comparison as "calling". I might end up claiming I don't know, but let me make sure before I reply. Anyway...excellent question, it may have to wait until Sunday when I can query Father about it, but I promise to reply sooner or later. A Happy and Holy New Year to you Charles, and to all!

 

Rory

Edited January 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[Calm]

. However, the

modern LDS Church has never branded it as a false teaching.....

Wrong, false, untrue. Edited January 1, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

halconero, thanks for arguing for me.

 

That is a great habit to cultivate.

 

cdowis...I have to think about the surgeon/priest comparison as "calling". I might end up claiming I don't know, but let me make sure before I reply. Anyway...excellent question, it may have to wait until Sunday when I can query Father about it, but I promise to reply sooner or later. A Happy and Holy New Year to you Charles, and to all!

 

Rory

I think it would depend a great deal on why the surgeon had chosen to become one....

[Storm Rider]

Read a book called "The Way to Perfection" by Joseph Fielding Smith. The 'Ham'

teaching seemed to be the prevalent view in the early Mormon era. However, the

modern LDS Church has never branded it as a false teaching which led many

astray who believed it.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Jim, you need to increase your reading. You are a little behind reality.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Interesting question so I had to "research" this issue on the source of all truth in the universe -- Wikipedia.  Accordingly, here is what I found:

 

Catholics -- It doesn't appear they ever had a priesthood restriction.  They had a black pope as early as 189 AD (Pope Victor I)

 

Lutherans -- Ordained Jehu Jones of New York, its first black minister in North America, in 1832.

 

Methodists/Episcopalians -- Absalom Jones was the first African American ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church of the United States and founded the AME (African Methodist Episcopal) Church, in 1804.

 

Presbyterians -- John Gloucester was a called as a pastor to start the First African Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia in 1807.

 

Baptists -- Licensed a slave, George Leile of Georgia, as first African American minister in 1773.

 

 

On the bright side, I don't think that the Amish have ordained ANY blacks to their priesthood as of yet, so we're not the LAST group to do so.

 

In fairness to us, these other groups were no more hospitable to blacks than we were.  In fact, part of the reason for ordaining black ministers was so they could have segregated services.  They didn't want to deny blacks the blessings of salvation but they weren't willing to go so far as to sit in the same pews with them either.

In 4 Nephi (only one chapter) it states that (too paraphrase) that the "there could not be a happier people among all the people created by the hand of God". The reason for this is " because they had all things common, and there were no Nephies no Lamanites, nor any matter of ites". When were get there we will be Zion.

[Robert F. Smith]

Ordaining was one thing and allowing blacks and whites to have church together is something else. The Southern Baptist Convention did not mix congregations until...sometime post 1990 and did not become prevalent until the 2000s. 

Bob Jones University is symptomatic of much of christianity in the deep South -- http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/62_bobjones.html .  An apology was not forthcoming until the former generations had passed on.

[3DOP]

Typically,

 

 

I would have to object to the characterization of the Catholic priesthood as a mere occupation or career.

 

Objection noted.

 

Among other sacrifices, the Catholic priest sacrifices career opportunities if he accepts a priestly calling. The Catholic priesthood is a calling, not a career.

 

OK, so we disagree on the definition of "career" and "calling".  So help me to understand ==>>, is a surgeon a career or a calling by your definition?  Now, regarding "sacrifice", if someone commits themselves to become a surgeon, with many years of education and internship, they have "sacrificed" alternative career choices. 

 

 

My son is currently half way through seven years of seminary formation and my son-in-law completed four years before it was determined that he was not called to the priesthood. In speaking with both of them, one with aspirations, and another with former aspirations, one knows does not know for sure that they are called by God to the priesthood until the bishop places his hands on their heads. In other words, at ordination one knows one's calling. That is beside the point I would make about the question asked by Duncan. 

 

OK, in the middle of training for a surgeon, the person decides they are no longer interested, (not "called" to that career) and find something else. Is a surgeon a career or a calling?

 

Please help me understand.  For me the comparison between the Catholic priesthood and a medical career is compelling.

 

 

A surgeon would be a career according to my definition.

 

Agreed that a surgeon sacrifices other career choices.

 

I agree that medicine and the Catholic priesthood have parallels. But a calling would mean that lack of interest must be modified. If you are called to be a surgeon/priest or anything else, it comes from God, your interest in the matter notwithstanding. This is why I would not consider medicine a calling as such. A religious vocation is not something you want, it is something you obey. My son-in-law wanted to be a priest, but he understood that if he was not called, that his desires must be directed elsewhere. After nearly four years of seminary, he was without a trace of bitterness, resigned to the decision of his superiors that he did not have a priestly calling. He will even tell you the personal trait that he has which tells him he knows they were right. (I think he is not ashamed of this trait. Heh.). 

 

I have heard Mormons speak of being "called" to hold different offices or duties in their wards. I think these are ordinarily accepted as a sign of God's will for at least the period prescribed. The desires of the person might be secondary to the needs of the community. As with the Catholic priesthood, I would guess that a certain holy resignation ought to be the continual attitude toward these callings.

 

With medicine, as with any career, it would still be important to seek God's will in the matter. While I do not feel called to be a truck driver, and would never have sought it, it it is clearly the will of God for me, and as such I am resigned to it. We can all be resigned to God's will in the knowledge that we are trying to discern it in our lives. But no one sets aside his own desires so much as the one trying to discern a calling to the priesthood.

 

In conclusion, I would think that all docile Christians, seeking God's will, would experience distinct parallels with what happens in the Catholic priesthood. But because of the ordinary allowance we have that desire direct what someone do to make money to support a family, it seems like their should be a distinction between that vocation, as a career, and the priesthood. As a Catholic priest, the individual ordinarily gives up having his own family, in some respects he becomes father of a larger family, and if wealth is still accumulated somehow, it will not be enhanced by accepting a priest calling.

 

Gotta go...I hope I don't need to edit...yikes...it got late. See you later.

 

3DOP