Only For Those Who Were 30 Years Old And Up

[Tacenda]

Don't see it since it was taught blacks would get the PH in the next life at the very least. For it to disqualify them it would have to disqualify everyone who didn't have the priesthood in mortality. It was never taught that I know of that proxy work wouldn't be done for all blacks who didn't have the opportunity.

Think you are trying too hard on that one.

That or the people discussing it on a podcast were.

[Calm]

Wouldn't be surprised.

[Danzo]

I couldn't respond to this until I had my 25 posts.

 

I was a young adult when the revelation was received.  I welcomed it and most of the people I knew did.  My Dad served a mission in South Africa in the 50s.  He was happy to see the revelation finally here.

 

But... I have an Aunt who is very bigoted.  She a good person but just doesn't like Blacks.  The revelation was one of the reasons she lost her testimony and ended up being excommunicated.  She was re-baptized a few years ago.  But its still hard for her to be around African Americans.   When my grandmother was living with her we made arrangements for home health care to come in and help with grandma's care 3 times a week.  They sent a Black girl who was amazing, but my Aunt called and asked them not to send her back.  It broke my heart for the great HH Aide and for my Aunt.

 

Which goes to show that the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum of saints.

[JLHPROF]

D&c 132 has some racist ideas. I wish that section would go away. I think it's in vs. 16.

 

"I wish that section would go away" - really?  You wish that God didn't tell us his will because some people don't like it?

[thesometimesaint]

In vs. 16, those without the credentials are servants, so it was kind of racist when blacks had the PH withheld.

 

It has nothing to do with skin color, and everything to do with what you're willing to accept.

[mfbukowski]

fergitabout it.

 

I don't need to get back into this mess!

Edited March 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

It has nothing to do with skin color, and everything to do with what you're willing to accept.

Well, you're a guy.

[Stargazer]

I read through this entire thread trying to see what else Mormonnewb (and that's Mormon - NEWB, not WEB, for you dyslexics out there :-) ) was going to contribute, so I didn't harrow up ground that had already been smoothed over, but he hasn't posted here for 6 days. So I guess what I post here is still relevant, although his absence suggests he won't read this.

MN did express doubts about people's remembrances of being joyful over the 1978 revelation, as if our memory of the event had undergone significant revision over the decades. I suppose this might equate to the phenomenon in post-war Germany where you couldn't find anyone at all who had ever voted for Hitler, leading one to imagine that either there had been a lot of election fraud, or people were ashamed of themselves. Note that this is not comparing anyone to Hitler, so don't invoke Godwin's Law on me.

I actually do not remember anyone claiming in this thread that the Utah highways were parking lots filled with saints weeping uncontrollably in joy about OD2. The Saints’ actions leading up to OD2 might have indicated indifference, or it might have indicated acceptance of what was seen as the Lord’s will concerning the subject, and an unwillingness to rebel. If one happens to have a testimony that the Church is actually led by Christ, then rebellion is unbecoming a true Christian.

But as to the indifference of Utah members (I was not there and cannot report on it), I have a couple of quotes from two books, written by black members of the Church who WERE there. The first by Joseph Freeman, from his book “In the Lord’s Due Time” (1979). He was the first black to be ordained to the priesthood after the 1978 revelation. He said this:

Before even a week or two had elapsed, our phone began ringing off the wall with invitations for Toe (his wife) and me to speak to wards, fire-sides, MIA groups, and stake conferences. Of course we were happy and willing to share our testimonies of the gospel, but it seemed a little curious to me that I would be the focus of so much attention. There were plenty of other equally worthy Negro brethren who'd also received the priesthood, many of whom I'm sure were better speakers and who were more exemplary men than I. But being the "first" in anything makes for instant celebrities, and Toe and I entered into a very hectic schedule, often attending two or three sacrament meetings and a couple of firesides on a single Sunday. At one point we were scheduled solid for six months in advance.

Of course, the massive indifference of Utah saints over the extension of the priesthood is here clearly seen. Or maybe the opposite.

For my second example, Mary Sturlaugsen, wrote about this in her book, “A Soul So Rebellious” (1981):

The very next day the Lord opened the way. I will always remember June 9, 1978. I will always cherish the memory of the reaction of the Saints around me. Not only did I feel the heavens rejoicing, but I saw and heard the Saints around me doing the same. That special feeling radiated in the air. I first heard the news in the employment office in down-town Provo. Bishop Bush, bishop of the ward I had been in when I came to Provo, came up to me and asked if I re-membered him. He told me that he had some news that was going to change my whole life. I looked up at him, puzzled, and asked what it was.

"Your people have just been given the blessing of the priesthood."

"Please don't joke with me about something like that."

At that instant a young man who had been talking on the phone stood up and, with his fists stretched above his head, shouted, "All right!" Cold chills went completely through my body. All I could say was, "I don't believe it's happened." An older man beside me kept repeating, "I'll be darned, I'll be darned."

As I walked outside, crying like a happy kid at Christmas-time, horns were honking like crazy. I stopped for a red light and a car pulled up. The driver asked me if I had heard what he had just heard. I half mumbled and half nodded a dis-believing yes. He whooped and started blowing his horn as he drove off. When I arrived at my apartment my roommates ran out to meet me, and we jumped up and down screaming with joy. Finally we went inside and each said a prayer, sobs punctuating every one.

Yes, the indifferent denizens of Salt Lake City were ignoring the whole thing. Or maybe not. In Sister Sturlaugsen’s case, she made note of a full-page ad that some opponent of the revelation had taken out in the Tribune. But still, there was spontaneous celebration going on, and in public.

As most saints took no action to get the ban lifted, is it plausible that they would have reacted as people who did once it was lifted?

As I wrote before, most saints who were concerned about it simply waited for the “due time of the Lord”.

The saints' indifference was patently demonstrated by their willing acceptance of the ban.

I definitely recall that there were 12 tribes of Israel, and only one segment of one tribe, the descendants of Aaron, was allowed to hold the priesthood. Do you think that the other tribes should have demonstrated against their being excluded from the priesthood? Or do you think that it was the will of God that only that small number of men were permitted to serve? Since they didn’t do so, they were indifferent and complacent in the obvious discrimination that was being practiced?

Granted, the question is still unanswered as to whether the ban was doctrine or long-standing policy that was against the Lord’s will, but my proposition is that if it were policy that the Lord did not will, then why didn’t He act to change it? Given that 15 prophets, seers and revelators met weekly over a period of a hundred years discussing the carrying out of the Lord’s agenda, seems to me that He had adequate opportunity to inspire His leaders towards the idea of reversing the ban. Since He did not do so (and all it would have taken would have been simply attending the meeting in person and telling them so), He either did not Himself judge that the time was ripe and so took no action, or He doesn’t really guide this Church. Or maybe He doesn’t exist.

Now, some of you in this conversation agree with the proposition that the Lord guides this Church. For you, the fact that He didn’t impel his Prophet to take action to do away with the ban should suggest that it wasn’t His will to do so, at least not until 1978. Others of you in the conversation don’t believe the Lord guides this Church. And for you, there’s only one reason it took until 1978, and that’s because the Church is racist. Slam dunk.

I happen to be firmly in the camp of those who believe that the President of the Church is a prophet, seer and revelator, with all that that implies. And why should I protest against the Lord’s prophet?

People who were NOT indifferent to Jim Crow laws protested, marched and died to force their removal. The vast majority of faithful saints did NONE of these things (inside or outside of the Church).

I understand that you consider that the priesthood ban was just another example of Jim Crow. You’re entitled to your opinion. But you’re wrong.

So what possible EVIDENCE is there that the saints had a problem with the ban? They didn't speak out against it. They didn't leave the Church in protest. So what would make me think that they didn't SUPPORT the ban? Or at the very least, were indifferent to its existence?

So, when Jesus said hard things to the disciples, and many left off following him, they were justified? I should have asked to be excommunicated as a form of protest at the priesthood ban? I should have traveled to Salt Lake City to carry a protest sign around Temple Square? Without such things I am not truly happy that the ban was lifted?

Give me a break.

I am a member of the Lord’s Church. Not a member of some social club. I wouldn’t join a club that discriminated on the basis of race. But when the Lord called me by His Spirit to join His church, I came. For me to then make demands of the Lord that he needs to change His organization to suit my prejudices constitutes unrighteous rebellion. If I had left the Church for this reason, after all I had experienced through the Spirit, would probably have constituted sinning against the Holy Ghost. Do you think that would have been wise, to become a Son of Perdition over an issue that the Lord would shortly act upon anyway? There’s no forgiveness for a SoP – no “Oops” reversals permitted. Perhaps I didn’t know enough to be a SoP.

Remind me why you’re a member of the Church. You think this is some kind of popular democracy or something?

I guess I will conclude with something Marcus Martins wrote. He is the son of the first black General Authority, Helvecio Martins of Brazil. In “Setting the Record Straight: Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood” he wrote:

Why, then, was there a priesthood ban? The official statement of the Church made in 1969 under President David 0. McKay's leadership declared that the ban existed for "reasons which we believe are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to man." In other words, we don't know.

The Lord never explained why he allowed the ban to exist. I understand that this may be insufficient to some people. However, allow me to share another personal testimony about that. There was a time — years ago — when I used to think: "One day I will be in the presence of the Lord, and I will ask him why." But now, time and experience in the kingdom of God have taught me otherwise. Through the power of the Holy Ghost I have felt many times his love for me. And when I consider that Heavenly Father gave his Only Begotten Son to suffer infinite agony and pain for me, I don't dare ask anything other than "Thy will be done, my Lord, my God." That's how I honestly feel about this.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, you're a guy.

 

Well you're a gal. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

[thesometimesaint]

I read through this entire thread trying to see what else Mormonnewb (and that's Mormon - NEWB, not WEB, for you dyslexics out there :-) ) was going to contribute, so I didn't harrow up ground that had already been smoothed over, but he hasn't posted here for 6 days. So I guess what I post here is still relevant, although his absence suggests he won't read this.

MN did express doubts about people's remembrances of being joyful over the 1978 revelation, as if our memory of the event had undergone significant revision over the decades. I suppose this might equate to the phenomenon in post-war Germany where you couldn't find anyone at all who had ever voted for Hitler, leading one to imagine that either there had been a lot of election fraud, or people were ashamed of themselves. Note that this is not comparing anyone to Hitler, so don't invoke Godwin's Law on me.

I actually do not remember anyone claiming in this thread that the Utah highways were parking lots filled with saints weeping uncontrollably in joy about OD2. The Saints’ actions leading up to OD2 might have indicated indifference, or it might have indicated acceptance of what was seen as the Lord’s will concerning the subject, and an unwillingness to rebel. If one happens to have a testimony that the Church is actually led by Christ, then rebellion is unbecoming a true Christian.

But as to the indifference of Utah members (I was not there and cannot report on it), I have a couple of quotes from two books, written by black members of the Church who WERE there. The first by Joseph Freeman, from his book “In the Lord’s Due Time” (1979). He was the first black to be ordained to the priesthood after the 1978 revelation. He said this:

Of course, the massive indifference of Utah saints over the extension of the priesthood is here clearly seen. Or maybe the opposite.

For my second example, Mary Sturlaugsen, wrote about this in her book, “A Soul So Rebellious” (1981):

Yes, the indifferent denizens of Salt Lake City were ignoring the whole thing. Or maybe not. In Sister Sturlaugsen’s case, she made note of a full-page ad that some opponent of the revelation had taken out in the Tribune. But still, there was spontaneous celebration going on, and in public.

As I wrote before, most saints who were concerned about it simply waited for the “due time of the Lord”.

I definitely recall that there were 12 tribes of Israel, and only one segment of one tribe, the descendants of Aaron, was allowed to hold the priesthood. Do you think that the other tribes should have demonstrated against their being excluded from the priesthood? Or do you think that it was the will of God that only that small number of men were permitted to serve? Since they didn’t do so, they were indifferent and complacent in the obvious discrimination that was being practiced?

Granted, the question is still unanswered as to whether the ban was doctrine or long-standing policy that was against the Lord’s will, but my proposition is that if it were policy that the Lord did not will, then why didn’t He act to change it? Given that 15 prophets, seers and revelators met weekly over a period of a hundred years discussing the carrying out of the Lord’s agenda, seems to me that He had adequate opportunity to inspire His leaders towards the idea of reversing the ban. Since He did not do so (and all it would have taken would have been simply attending the meeting in person and telling them so), He either did not Himself judge that the time was ripe and so took no action, or He doesn’t really guide this Church. Or maybe He doesn’t exist.

Now, some of you in this conversation agree with the proposition that the Lord guides this Church. For you, the fact that He didn’t impel his Prophet to take action to do away with the ban should suggest that it wasn’t His will to do so, at least not until 1978. Others of you in the conversation don’t believe the Lord guides this Church. And for you, there’s only one reason it took until 1978, and that’s because the Church is racist. Slam dunk.

I happen to be firmly in the camp of those who believe that the President of the Church is a prophet, seer and revelator, with all that that implies. And why should I protest against the Lord’s prophet?

I understand that you consider that the priesthood ban was just another example of Jim Crow. You’re entitled to your opinion. But you’re wrong.

So, when Jesus said hard things to the disciples, and many left off following him, they were justified? I should have asked to be excommunicated as a form of protest at the priesthood ban? I should have traveled to Salt Lake City to carry a protest sign around Temple Square? Without such things I am not truly happy that the ban was lifted?

Give me a break.

I am a member of the Lord’s Church. Not a member of some social club. I wouldn’t join a club that discriminated on the basis of race. But when the Lord called me by His Spirit to join His church, I came. For me to then make demands of the Lord that he needs to change His organization to suit my prejudices constitutes unrighteous rebellion. If I had left the Church for this reason, after all I had experienced through the Spirit, would probably have constituted sinning against the Holy Ghost. Do you think that would have been wise, to become a Son of Perdition over an issue that the Lord would shortly act upon anyway? There’s no forgiveness for a SoP – no “Oops” reversals permitted. Perhaps I didn’t know enough to be a SoP.

Remind me why you’re a member of the Church. You think this is some kind of popular democracy or something?

I guess I will conclude with something Marcus Martins wrote. He is the son of the first black General Authority, Helvecio Martins of Brazil. In “Setting the Record Straight: Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood” he wrote:

 

 

:yahoo: