Only For Those Who Were 30 Years Old And Up

[california boy]

Are you saying here that the Brazilian Saints were given the Priesthood even with black African ancestry before the lifting?

Or are you wondering why the ban was so troubling for Brazil but apparently not for the US?

I am wondering and confused.  Is that true?

[Calm]

The Sao Paulo Brazil Temple was dedicated Oct 30 1978.

I believe it was in part the question of how they would be able to have enough priesthood holders to manage temple work as well as local units that motivated the push for seeking revelation on the ban again.

"By the late 1940s and 1950s, racial integration was becoming more common in American life. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.14

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.15

As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations”16 seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. The Book of Mormon declared that the gospel message of salvation should go forth to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”17 While there were no limits on whom the Lord invited to “partake of his goodness” through baptism,18 the priesthood and temple restrictions created significant barriers, a point made increasingly evident as the Church spread in international locations with diverse and mixed racial heritages.

Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders.19

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.”20 The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints, men and women. The First Presidency statement regarding the revelation was canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2."

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited March 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[california boy]

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.”20 The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints, men and women. The First Presidency statement regarding the revelation was canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2."

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

For me, this is the sticking point.  The official telling of the story after 1978 states that church leaders pondered Brigham Young's statement that the blacks would one day hold the priesthood.  What it doesn't state is that church leaders pondered Brigham Young's statement that blacks would NOT hold the priesthood until the MILLENNIUM.  How does, to this day, the church lob off the last part of Brigham Young's statement and pretend that part of the statement was never there, AND using the first part of the statement to make the point that "we always knew the blacks would be given the priesthood in the future.  When the correct statement should be, we always knew the blacks would eventually receive the priesthood IN THE MILLENNIUM.  

 

And if they can not bear to make that statement, then the truthful statement should be "We always knew that blacks would receive the priesthood in the millennium, but God changed His mind and gave it to them in 1978 instead.  But like you, the church pretends that was never part of Brigham Young's statement.

 

That's not a nice thing to say to other posters, CK.

[Calm]

"But like you, the church pretends that was never part of Brigham Young's statement"

Prove that this is what I "pretend". I can prove I don't. It is there in my posts in this very thread, the expectation being one of many factors of the experience.

Do you even bother to read people's posts before attacking them? If your interpretation so misses the point with one person's comment, why should I assume your interpretations of the complicated dynamics of a multimillion member organization have the least value?

Edited March 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[california boy]

"But like you, the church pretends that was never part of Brigham Young's statement"

Prove that this is what I "pretend". I can prove I don't. It is there in my posts in this very thread, the expectation being one of many factors of the experience.

Do you even bother to read people's posts before attacking them? If your interpretation so misses the point with one person's comment, why should I assume your interpretations of the complicated dynamics of a multimillion member organization have the least value?

I wasn't tlaking about your beliefs at all.  And I wasn't attacking you.  It was a general comment about church leaders.  But I am interested in what you think.  Do yo agree with me?

[mfbukowski]

For me, this is the sticking point.  The official telling of the story after 1978 states that church leaders pondered Brigham Young's statement that the blacks would one day hold the priesthood.  What it doesn't state is that church leaders pondered Brigham Young's statement that blacks would NOT hold the priesthood until the MILLENNIUM.  How does, to this day, the church lob off the last part of Brigham Young's statement and pretend that part of the statement was never there, AND using the first part of the statement to make the point that "we always knew the blacks would be given the priesthood in the future.  When the correct statement should be, we always knew the blacks would eventually receive the priesthood IN THE MILLENNIUM.  

 

And if they can not bear to make that statement, then the truthful statement should be "We always knew that blacks would receive the priesthood in the millennium, but God changed His mind and gave it to them in 1978 instead.  But like you, the church pretends that was never part of Brigham Young's statement.

It appears you do not understand what the church teaches regarding pronouncements by prophets.

 

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5 President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”6

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

[Calm]

I wasn't tlaking about your beliefs at all.  And I wasn't attacking you.  It was a general comment about church leaders.  But I am interested in what you think.  Do yo agree with me?

Explain the "but like you" then

[thesometimesaint]

Yup.  I ain't makin this stuff up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

 

Marxists or Marxians if you prefer (there is a difference for the really politically correct) like positive liberty, Jefferson and the boys stressed negative liberty.

 

Opposition in all things is another term for "dialectic".  Mormons are dialectical materialists but just stress negative liberty above positive.

 

But don't tell anyone-ok?

 

Oh to make that politically correct for a Mormon board I could insert the Mormon translation of the terms.  Socialism is a counterfeit form of the Law of Consecration.  There.  Now I'm not a heretic anymore. 

I think that it is Communism that is the counterfeit form of the Law of Consecration, not Socialism. But I digress.

You and I still are heretics.

[california boy]

It appears you do not understand what the church teaches regarding pronouncements by prophets.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

No I don't understand.  Does anyone these days?  Was the 1949 letter about the priesthood doctrine?  Was Brigham Youngs revelation on the blacks doctrine?  And if it was not doctrine, does that mean God willingly denied temple and priesthood blessings for blacks for over 100 years and no one bothered to ask Him?  Love to hear your answer if you have one.

[california boy]

Explain the "but like you" then

I think I was responding to you saying that it was well understood that the blacks would receive the priesthood some day and they didn't necessarily have to wait until the millennium.  I was asking how that could possibly be true when Brigham Young clearly stated that they would not get the priesthood until the millennium.  If that was not what you wrote or if I misunderstood your statement, then i sincerely apologize.

[mfbukowski]

No I don't understand.  Does anyone these days?  Was the 1949 letter about the priesthood doctrine?  Was Brigham Youngs revelation on the blacks doctrine?  And if it was not doctrine, does that mean God willingly denied temple and priesthood blessings for blacks for over 100 years and no one bothered to ask Him?  Love to hear your answer if you have one.

Of course.

 

The answer is what it has always been.

 

Pray about it- why would you trust anyone but God to tell you what's right?  You have already voted with your feet, so why do you care what we believe?

 

In the off chance you are actually interested in the question, rather than looking for a place to rant against Mormons- here is a start.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

[mfbukowski]

No I don't understand.  Does anyone these days?  Was the 1949 letter about the priesthood doctrine?  Was Brigham Youngs revelation on the blacks doctrine?  And if it was not doctrine, does that mean God willingly denied temple and priesthood blessings for blacks for over 100 years and no one bothered to ask Him?  Love to hear your answer if you have one.

Incidentally there was never a Brigham Young revelation on blacks.

 

There have been numerous threads on this topic- just read up on the answers

[california boy]

Of course.

 

The answer is what it has always been.

 

Pray about it- why would you trust anyone but God to tell you what's right?  You have already voted with your feet, so why do you care what we believe?

 

In the off chance you are actually interested in the question, rather than looking for a place to rant against Mormons- here is a start.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

Sorry, but I never rant against Mormons.  You will never find a single post where I have ranted against Mormons or it's leaders.  Asking questions about what is now viewed as doctrine is not ranting against Mormons.  Me wanting to understand how a Mormon can embrace the first part of Brigham Young's revelation on blacks and ignore the second half of his revelation is not a rant.  For virtually my entire life, blacks not being allowed to hold the priesthood until after the millennium was taught as doctrine, not just an opinion.  So when I ask who knows what doctrine is any more, it is because I am experiencing a completely different definition of what doctrine is.  Perhaps I am the only one that is feeling a huge shift in how Mormons define doctrine and am having a difficult time trying to figure this out.  I don't ask questions to rant, I ask questions to try and understand better.  If you find that offensive, then I am sorry.  No offense was intended.  But I am still going to ask questions to try and better understand the changes happening in the Mormon church.  Just because I am no longer a member does not mean that I have no interest in the church.  

 

I read your link btw.  Not sure why you linked it to me.  This is just one person's opinion of what he thinks doctrine is.  Why did you think I would benefit from reading the link?  How does that help me understand the issue?

Edited March 5, 2014 by california boy

[Calm]

I think I was responding to you saying that it was well understood that the blacks would receive the priesthood some day and they didn't necessarily have to wait until the millennium. I was asking how that could possibly be true when Brigham Young clearly stated that they would not get the priesthood until the millennium. If that was not what you wrote or if I misunderstood your statement, then i sincerely apologize.

I don't think believing that Brigham Young got it wrong (which I accepted as a possibility at the time even if the announcement was a total surprise to me as I also accepted it as a possibility that they would have to wait especially given what appeared to me in my uneducated state as any lack of movement towards modifying the ban) equates to pretending his comment doesn't exist. Edited March 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[california boy]

I don't think believing that Brigham Young got it wrong (which I accepted as a possibility at the time even if the announcement was a total surprise to me as I also accepted it as a possibility that they would have to wait especially given what appeared to me in my uneducated state as any lack of movement towards modifying the ban) equates to pretending his comment doesn't exist.

fair enough.  Thanks for the clarification.

[LittleNipper]

Well, if the Mormon Church got it wrong concerning the "race" issue, how right could they be with regards to other various "Mormon" doctrine..?

[busybee]

I haven't read to the end of the thread but just have to jump in here. Mormonweb seems to be making the (common) assumption that the black people of the US were the only ones in the world. In my very humble opinion, the black people of Africa (where most black people are, by the way) were in a very different place to those who had had longer exposure to western influences. I don't think that anyone who hasn't had direct experience with the very different tribal customs to be found through Africa will be able to fully understand this. I said in a previous post, the timing (in Africa, where most black people live, so where most people would be affected by the lifting of the ban) was perfect. There is a whole world outside the USA, Mormonweb.

[stemelbow]

Had a conversation with a lady yesterday that reminded me of this thread.  She is much older than I and grew up in the south as a Mormon, much like my own mother, BTW.  Their stories are very similar. 

 

There was a great amount of discomfort and outspoken resentment when the ban was lifted among many Mormons there.  This lady grew up in South Carolina while my mom grew up in Georgia.  Close to the same time.  In high school my mom's school was desegregated, and it was uncomfortable to everyone. 

 

Anyway, the lady reported hearing choice language from her Stake President after the ban was lifted.  Saying in essence, he has absolutely no intention of ever ordaining a black man.  He simply wouldn't do it.  I'm sure eventually he came around.  She also indicated the racism was prevalent among many LDS into the 90s.  Many authorities came in to, as she put, essentially say if you have racism in your heart you are not right.  Your salvation will be in question. 

 

Just wanted to point out there were, of course, varied reactions to the 1978 change. 

[Mystery Meat]

Let's be honest here, the main reason why this topic is being discussed is because of the Church's stance on same-sex marriage and homosexuality, yes? I think, if I am being 100% honest, that it is a fair comparison for a few reasons but very distinguishable for a lot of others.

[rpn]

While there is no evidence that BY received revelation denying Blacks the priesthood, it is reasonable to infer that he thought he did, or that he thought what he did was consistent with the other instructions he got from God, even if he knew he hadn't been told to do it directly.   

 

And since God is perfectly capable of finding a way to make His leaders listen to Him and do His will (or at least be struck dumb or taken in death for refusal), it is further reasonable to ponder that we should wait to ask Him about why the ban was not removed earlier before suggesting that He disapproved of it from the beginning and BY was a renegade, or that He planned it or decided that it could serve some of His purpose for a time.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, if the Mormon Church got it wrong concerning the "race" issue, how right could they be with regards to other various "Mormon" doctrine..?

 

While there may be a Mormon Church. I don't know of all churches. We're not them. We're The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

As to the issue of whom is right the only answer that is given is to "Ask God"

SEE Moroni 10: 4

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ^aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not ^btrue; and if ye shall ask with a ^csincere heart, with ^dreal intent, having ^efaith in Christ, he will ^fmanifest the ^gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[thatjimguy]

Let's be honest here, the main reason why this topic is being discussed is because of the Church's stance on same-sex marriage and homosexuality, yes? I think, if I am being 100% honest, that it is a fair comparison for a few reasons but very distinguishable for a lot of others.

 

It certainly is not the reason I brought it up. Where are you getting the idea that would be a underlying reason for the discussion?

[Calm]

I haven't read to the end of the thread but just have to jump in here. Mormonweb seems to be making the (common) assumption that the black people of the US were the only ones in the world. In my very humble opinion, the black people of Africa (where most black people are, by the way) were in a very different place to those who had had longer exposure to western influences. I don't think that anyone who hasn't had direct experience with the very different tribal customs to be found through Africa will be able to fully understand this. I said in a previous post, the timing (in Africa, where most black people live, so where most people would be affected by the lifting of the ban) was perfect. There is a whole world outside the USA, Mormonweb.

I would be very interested to hear you expand on this.

[wenglund]

This is the claim you made.

 

 

 

This is what I gave you as proof that your statement was false

 

 

That list includes some of the largest protestant religions in the world, some much larger than the Mormon church, all combined dwarfing the population of the Mormon church, yet you call it insignificant.  By doing so, you are also calling the Mormon church insignificant.  The gay movement has been going on since the 1960's.  The Mormon church has been going on since 1830.  Just what group is more successful???  What is undeniable is that since 1960's were virtually none of these religions allowed for gay marriage and/or ordained gay clergy, we now have some of the largest protestant religions places like Canada, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands etc.  All are larger than the Mormon church in those countries.  

 

Not significant in roads?  Yeah right.  The population of the Mormon church which as been going on since 1830 is puny in comparison to the number of churches supporting gay marriage/clergy.  As you like to end your posts, I suggest you take some remedial math classes and then get back to us.

 

That was a verbose way of saying that you don't understand the difference between "religionists" and "Mormons." (Hint: Mormons are a small subset of religionists) My comment was regarding religionists. Please, read for comprehension.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Second and last warning today.  STOP the insults!

[wenglund]

Well, if the Mormon Church got it wrong concerning the "race" issue, how right could they be with regards to other various "Mormon" doctrine..?

 

I don't get this kind of binary/fundamentalist way of looking at things. If we fallible humans adopted this kind of "reasoning," we would be unable to believe anything because humans invariable make make mistakes. And yet, science has gotten a number of things wrong, and we continue to trust it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-