rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 No it hasn't. Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such. - Gordon B Hinkley There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. - Bruce R McConkie ...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. - Dallin H Oaks 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. - Jeffrey R Holland So your belief is that the Brethren have clearly stated that the priesthood ban was NOT of God? That is what you take from these quotes? Because I have met many people here on these boards and IRL that do not believe that is the position of the Church. So perhaps rather than apologize, the Brethren could make it clear that the ban was not from God as the recent essay does not make that clear. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I have seen nothing which even remotely suggest "that the priesthood & temple ban may have been from God."Perhaps you have some selected quotes from 1978 which suggest that, or the copy of a revelation which said that, or something that Joseph Smith did which would suggest that -- oh, wait, Joseph ordained black men and argued for an end to slavery. Gee, what happened in between times?What happened between times? Racism happened.Racist doctrines which are now disavowed as "theories" were taught regularly as the official position of the church. I think it's a reasonable for people to assume a doctrine they hear repetedly over the pulpit by church authorities is the official position of the church. If the prophets, apostles and First Presidency support racist teachings many members would assume that the racist doctrine was from God. It wasn't. It was from Man. That's what this whole thread is about.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I have seen nothing which even remotely suggests "that the priesthood & temple ban may have been from God."Perhaps you have some selected quotes from 1978 which suggest that, or the copy of a revelation which said that, or something that Joseph Smith did which would suggest that -- oh, wait, Joseph ordained black men and argued for an end to slavery. Gee, what happened in between times? See KevinG post #447. You can read my response to KevinG's #447 post. But to your question - What happened in between times? It seems clear now, that Brigham Young implemented a policy that had its roots in the racism of the time. We held to that policy through 1978 on the basis that a revelation was needed to rescind it. If we now know that the policy was not what God wanted then we ought to apologize for that institutional mistake propagated through multiple generations since it is still not clear to many members that it was an error. 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 God isn't a racist. The church has behaved in a racist way and attributed that racism to God. This is the error the church should apologize for. So we need to apologize for Jesus only go to the Jews? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 What happened between times? Racism happened.Racist doctrines which are now disavowed as "theories" were taught regularly as the official position of the church. I think it's a reasonable for people to assume a doctrine they hear repetedly over the pulpit by church authorities is the official position of the church. If the prophets, apostles and First Presidency support racist teachings many members would assume that the racist doctrine was from God. It wasn't. It was from Man. That's what this whole thread is about.All good points, HappyJack, but how come rockpond doesn't get it?
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) All good points, HappyJack, but how come rockpond doesn't get it? I agree with what HappyJack wrote. Take a look at my questions to you. Edited August 31, 2015 by rockpond
Robert F. Smith Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) You can read my response to KevinG's #447 post. But to your question - What happened in between times? It seems clear now, that Brigham Young implemented a policy that had its roots in the racism of the time. We held to that policy through 1978 on the basis that a revelation was needed to rescind it. If we now know that the policy was not what God wanted then we ought to apologize for that institutional mistake propagated through multiple generations since it is still not clear to many members that it was an error.You are the only person I have dealt with who thinks that it wasn't an error. Where are all those "many members" you speak of? Edited August 31, 2015 by Robert F. Smith
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 So we need to apologize for Jesus only go to the Jews? Do you believe the priesthood & temple ban was from God or Christ?
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) You are the only person I have dealt with who thinks that it wasn't an error. Where are all those "many members" you speak of? I do believe that the priesthood/temple ban was an error. But I encounter many members who still believe it came from God. Most recently, my Bishop. If it was an error, why would we not apologize for it? Edited August 31, 2015 by rockpond
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 You can read my response to KevinG's #447 post. But to your question - What happened in between times? It seems clear now, that Brigham Young implemented a policy that had its roots in the racism of the time. We held to that policy through 1978 on the basis that a revelation was needed to rescind it. If we now know that the policy was not what God wanted then we ought to apologize for that institutional mistake propagated through multiple generations since it is still not clear to many members that it was an error. We clearly believe the Ban was initiated by God. We were clearly wrong on the many "reasons" given for that Ban. We have formally apologized for all those "reasons" being given. 2
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Do you believe the priesthood & temple ban was from God or Christ? Christ is God in the LDS faith.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 So we need to apologize for Jesus only go to the Jews?I'm very comfortable with Christ as a perfect leader whereas I do not believe Brigham or any prophet is perfect like Christ. Your comparison doesn't hold up. Because I question a man you think I should also question God. I don't think so.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) Christ is God in the LDS faith. I understand that, I was just trying to write a clear question. Edited August 31, 2015 by rockpond
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 rockpond, on 31 Aug 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:Do you believe the priesthood & temple ban was from God or Christ? TheSometimeSaint; Christ is God in the LDS faith. You're kind of off the rails here. Do we need to have a discussion about how God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate personages? I sure hope not. We clearly believe the Ban was initiated by God.No we don't. If it was clearly from God I imagine there must be a revelation, right? CFR for how we know the ban was clearly from God.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 We clearly believe the Ban was initiated by God. We were clearly wrong on the many "reasons" given for that Ban. We have formally apologized for all those "reasons" being given. We have not apologized. CFR that we have. We have only disavowed the reasons. I guess I can count you as one of the members that believes the ban was of God (see my dialogue with him on this thread). Robert seems to believe that the church's position is that the ban was never of God. 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I'm very comfortable with Christ as a perfect leader whereas I do not believe Brigham or any prophet is perfect like Christ. Your comparison doesn't hold up. Because I question a man you think I should also question God. I don't think so. I too am comfortable with Christ being the perfect leader. However we do have Scripture(The Bible) that has Christ as refusing to go to the non-Jews until after his mortal ministry. It was the argument between Peter and Paul that motivated Peter to ask God what to do about that Ban.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 You are the only person I have dealt with who thinks that it wasn't an error. Where are all those "many members" you speak of? Here's another member: thesometimessaint on this thread in his post above.
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I don't even believe the priesthood ban was initiated by God. Statements given by Apostles and Prophets indicate that we were anywhere from wrong, to spectacularly wrong. I do believe that Brigham facing the pressures of persecution for abolitionist stances, desire for statehood/autonomy, remnants of protestant doctrines we hung onto, etc. put in place a policy that we had to be corrected over many decades later. Not having Brigham or others able to answer for themselves we cannot know now what the real reasons were. Even today most people don't know the ban was not based on color but lineage, many of which we couldn't determine. My discussions with Brazilian Saints who lived in the church in the 1970s and earlier are very illuminating. As difficult as it is for some Saints to say "we were wrong" I don't see that attitude among the general authorities given the statements above and others. If the faithful are holding on to debunked folk doctrines (aka not doctrines), it is an issue with the false belief in prophetic inerrancy, or the equally false doctrine that the church not being led astray is equal to the church not making mistakes. If critics are holding on to debunked folk doctrines (aka not doctrines) I suspect it is an issue of continually trying to prove the church wrong. 3
ALarson Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) I understood the essay (Race and the Priesthood) to trace the origin of the ban to Brigham Young. It is interesting though that it took a revelation from God to lift the ban. Edited August 31, 2015 by ALarson 2
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I too am comfortable with Christ being the perfect leader. However we do have Scripture(The Bible) that has Christ as refusing to go to the non-Jews until after his mortal ministry. It was the argument between Peter and Paul that motivated Peter to ask God what to do about that Ban.It feels like you're intentionally trying to agitate here so this is my last response to you until you provide the CFR I requested. Please understand there is a vast difference between Christ and any man; even a prophet. Therefore Christ can choose to go to or not go to any group of people he chooses. He may have his reasons. That is different than saying a prophet can behave in a racist way and then have generations of prophets give invalid reasons for the racist policy. Please tell me you can see the difference. 1
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Here's another member: thesometimessaint on this thread in his post above. Take a representative poll of Latter-day Saints and get back to us. I'm sure some sociology student at BYU will be willing to do it for credit. Until then this is probably the best place to seek Mormon attitudes about race in the 21st Century: http://www.amazon.com/All-Abrahams-Children-Changing-Conceptions/dp/0252028031
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I don't even believe the priesthood ban was initiated by God. Statements given by Apostles and Prophets indicate that we were anywhere from wrong, to spectacularly wrong. So wouldn't that be reason for an apology or at least a clear statement from the Prophet that the ban was a mistake? (Not the REASONS for the ban, but the ban itself.)
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 We have not apologized. CFR that we have. We have only disavowed the reasons. I guess I can count you as one of the members that believes the ban was of God (see my dialogue with him on this thread). Robert seems to believe that the church's position is that the ban was never of God. Here is an apology by a Prophet, albeit not a general conference apology: http://www.blacklds.org/840/pastor-to-pastor-president-hinckleys-apology-for-racism-in-the-church 1
KevinG Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 So wouldn't that be reason for an apology or at least a clear statement from the Prophet that the ban was a mistake? (Not the REASONS for the ban, but the ban itself.) If you don't see a clear statement in the quotes I provided I don't know what else can be said. This reminds me so much of an argument between husband and wife where one won't accept the admission of the other because it wasn't worded correctly for them. As several of my black friends in and out of the church have said, in one way or another "you whites need to get over this and move on!" 1
ALarson Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Take a representative poll of Latter-day Saints and get back to us.I don't know for sure, but I would imagine many members who haven't read the recent essay still believe the ban came from God. Members believe anything that was put in place by one of their Prophets (past or present) came from God. I also believe that members don't really dwell much on the ban though. I know that it's hardly even on my kid's radar as it was lifted long before they were even born. 1
Recommended Posts