JAHS Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I can only imagine that Brigham Young did what he thought was the "prudent" thing to do based on the attitudes and culture of the time and possibly also based on interpretation of some scriptures most notably the Abraham verse. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/1.26?lang=eng#25 I am guessing that on this particular subject Brigham and some of the other church leaders could be considered just as racist as most everyone else in the country at that time.
jkwilliams Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 This new position appears to require the reinterpretation of some scriptures in the Pearl of Great Price? As long as I've been alive, the "theories" that were advanced were based on some verses in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham that link skin color, lineage, and denial of the priesthood. How are these verses interpreted in the light of this new position? 2
JAHS Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 This new position appears to require the reinterpretation of some scriptures in the Pearl of Great Price? As long as I've been alive, the "theories" that were advanced were based on some verses in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham that link skin color, lineage, and denial of the priesthood. How are these verses interpreted in the light of this new position? Right. Abr 1: 26"Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order 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 blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood." In another revelation in the Book of Moses, it says that the Cainites, the descendants of Cain, the son of Adam, were "black" (Moses 7:22). From the early days of the church members have interpreted these verses as saying that blacks, being of the Cainite/Hamitic bloodline, would not be allowed to hold the Priesthood until the Abelites first had the opportunity. The article on Race and the Priesthood doesn't mention these scriptures at all. So like jkwilliams asked, are there other interpretations for these scriptures now?
Calm Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) Deleted because brain is asleep Edited October 1, 2015 by Calm
Storm Rider Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I think what Teancum meant was if they're really prophets, seers, and revelators in the one true church, they should have been right about the issue all along. How many perfect prophets do you know or can identify in the scriptures? 1
Calm Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I think it is the new videos included on the side menu including one with Darius Grey.
Rivers Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Right.Abr 1: 26"Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order 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 blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood."In another revelation in the Book of Moses, it says that the Cainites, the descendants of Cain, the son of Adam, were "black" (Moses 7:22).From the early days of the church members have interpreted these verses as saying that blacks, being of the Cainite/Hamitic bloodline, would not be allowed to hold the Priesthood until the Abelites first had the opportunity. The article on Race and the Priesthood doesn't mention these scriptures at all. So like jkwilliams asked, are there other interpretations for these scriptures now?That's the problem we're left with. We have abandoned racist doctrines yet we still have scriptures in our cannon that teach things with which we are uncomfortable. I think the problem comes from applying God's dealing with ancient peoples in the scriptures and applying them to modern racial groups. We are living in a new dispensation under a new covenant so there shouldn't be any reason to believe that judgements upon ancient people should apply to anyone today.
jkwilliams Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 That's the problem we're left with. We have abandoned racist doctrines yet we still have scriptures in our cannon that teach things with which we are uncomfortable. I think the problem comes from applying God's dealing with ancient peoples in the scriptures and applying them to modern racial groups. We are living in a new dispensation under a new covenant so there shouldn't be any reason to believe that judgements upon ancient people should apply to anyone today.The thing about the mark of Cain being black skin is that it is not an ancient concept at all but a late Protestant rationale for slavery. How it traveled back in time to Moses and Abraham is anyone's guess. 2
Danzo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I think what Teancum meant was if they're really prophets, seers, and revelators in the one true church, they should have been right about the issue all along.CFR that prophets, seers and revelators are always right. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) I'm not saying they're always right, but they should know better than racism if they're the representatives and mouthpiece of God for our world. And why it took over a decade after the Civil Rights movement to finally allow blacks to the priesthood. What I'm getting at is I think the right church and it's leaders if inspired by God shouldn't have been so wrong for so many years on racism. The church should've been leading the way in the world in allowing blacks the priesthood, not being behind the times and waiting til 1978 when the civil rights movement was in the 60s. Edited October 1, 2015 by VideoGameJunkie 2
Teancum Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Your new tone is charming. And being able to correct ourselves and grow is called maturity not "throwing our old self under the bus".My tone is about as charming as yours. Check th mirror.Maturity can also mean also mean admitting that certain things you hold dear and true may not be. 1
Teancum Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) I think what Teancum meant was if they're really prophets, seers, and revelators in the one true church, they should have been right about the issue all along.Kevin G can tell me "swing and miss" and his tone is fine. But if I challenge him back my tone is somehow bad. This gets old and tiresome. Edited October 1, 2015 by Teancum 1
Teancum Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I dunno. Ask Teancum. He's the expert on throwing bodies under the bus.I am glad you finally acknowledge my expertise.
stephenpurdy Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I think what Teancum meant was if they're really prophets, seers, and revelators in the one true church, they should have been right about the issue all along. Being a prophet , seer and revelator does not mean that you are always right about everything. It simply does not work that way. Did any of these people explain that their they got these ideas as revelations from the Lord?They were speculating. "It is dangerous for teachers of religion to teach as absolute facts that can’t be controverted something that is still in the realm of speculation and theory, and when you find someone who is writing a book in which they speak with a pedantic authority as though it was an accomplished fact and couldn’t be gainsaid, then you put a question mark by it and write “theory.” I will tell you what I do as I read these many books that come (and I think the day is here when we have got to be more discriminating in our reading than ever before). Let me suggest a method. As you read these books, no matter who writes them, read carefully down the record, and where their teaching is in complete agreement with the revelations that the Lord has given us and with the teachings of the scriptures, accept it as being fact, but where they go off into imaginative suppositions or speculations that are not fully proved by the scriptures, write out in the margin the name of the author. It is his idea, you see. Distinguish as between the individual’s idea and that which is supported by scriptures. (Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 441) -Stephen 1
teddyaware Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I'm not saying they're always right, but they should know better than racism if they're the representatives and mouthpiece of God for our world. And why it took over a decade after the Civil Rights movement to finally allow blacks to the priesthood. What I'm getting at is I think the right church and it's leaders if inspired by God shouldn't have been so wrong for so many years on racism. The church should've been leading the way in the world in allowing blacks the priesthood, not being behind the times and waiting til 1978 when the civil rights movement was in the 60s. So you you now believe President Kimball, and the rest of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, lied when they said they received a revelation from God telling them that the time to end the Priesthood ban had arrived?
stephenpurdy Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I think the problem comes from applying God's dealing with ancient peoples in the scriptures and applying them to modern racial groups. We are living in a new dispensation under a new covenant so there shouldn't be any reason to believe that judgements upon ancient people should apply to anyone today. Really, in the Law of Moses, ONLY Levites could be priests. That kind of Exclusivity did not exist prior to the Law of Moses and it did not exist with the New Testament Church. -Stephen
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Teddy I never said that. All I'm saying is took them long enough to get that revelation.
teddyaware Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) Teddy I never said that. All I'm saying is took them long enough to get that revelation. How about it took long enough for God to give the revelation? Don't you think that God could have overruled the brethren and ended the ban much earlier if He really wanted to to so? Did you ever stop to think that for His own heretofore undisclosed reasons God may have allowed the ban to stay in place for all those years that a greater good might ultimately be accomplished? And now the saints are being tested to see who will trust in the Lord and the prophecies of scripture and who will repudiate and revile the Lord's servants and trust in the arm of flesh. Do you not realize this is not the first time the Lord has allowed His people to pass through a trial that would make them very unpopular in the eyes of the world? Edited October 1, 2015 by teddyaware 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 That's about as big of an assumption you're making that I made. Shouldn't the church be leaders and pioneers of freedom and equality, not last to the party people?
rockpond Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 That's about as big of an assumption you're making that I made. Shouldn't the church be leaders and pioneers of freedom and equality, not last to the party people? Take comfort in knowing that the rationalizations, disavowals, and retractions being used to correct church leaders' racist errors of the past are just setting the template for how the Church will handle future changes to marriage (including gays) and priesthood (including women). 4
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Well it could be assumed that since all the apostles are so old that they're always a generation or 2 behind the world. That's why I'm hoping for younger apostles called who are more in touch with the world.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Why did they believe it for so long though?Most of them didn't. However, when President David O. McKay tried to lift the ban and begin sending missionaries to Black Africa, he was stymied by Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith's argument that a revelation was needed first. These things are complicated. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Take comfort in knowing that the rationalizations, disavowals, and retractions being used to correct church leaders' racist errors of the past are just setting the template for how the Church will handle future changes to marriage (including gays) and priesthood (including women).Not. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 That's about as big of an assumption you're making that I made. Shouldn't the church be leaders and pioneers of freedom and equality, not last to the party people?Actually they weren't last. Mormon congregations were never segregated, and the Southern Baptists and others took much longer to apologize for their blatant racism of hundreds of years standing. Indeed, Joseph Smith was a pioneer in calling for the freeing of the slaves during his 1844 political run for the U.S. Presidency. Joseph and his brethren also ordained black men. After he died, Mormons became backsliders for a while.
Recommended Posts