Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[The Nehor]

God seems to find what we would call racism (the belief that one race is inherently superior or inferior) repugnant. The problem is God does seem to set blessings and the like by lineage, ethnic group, and whatever else. Jesus only taught the House of Israel.  I have a patriarchal blessing that gives me blessings based on lineage and, by default, not getting the blessings of another lineage. The Book of Mormon is big on Gentiles and the House of Israel and their blessings. To us it feels horribly archaic but it is all over our teachings and scripture.

Did many members use the ban as justification for racism? Definitely. Was it a declaration of superiority or inferiority? Not really. The blessing Abraham gave that is often tied to it was a mixed bag. Much like most lineages.

Definitely glad it is gone though. That does not mean we will never see such restrictions again. God can restrict or expand who receives the Priesthood as he wishes.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

It depends on the policy. Which one are you referring to here?

You had been talking about racist interpretations of doctrine and racist theories to justify the ban, and these had nothing to do with discouraging Civil Rights. The three examples we've been looking at (Benson's talk, Stapley's personal letter, and Peterson's speech) had distinct purposes one from another, and none of them were to teach the Church's stance on Civil Rights.

If you're now talking about the ban itself, you're back to to square one: the ban had nothing to do with discouraging Civil Rights. It was a religious practice within the LDS community.

I wasn't talking about civil rights per se, just the cause of equality in general. I doubt the Jim Crow laws in the south did much to improve attitudes toward black people. Ditto for the priesthood ban, which spawned all those racist theories you refer to (and was itself implemented based on a racist theory of blacks carrying the curse of Ham/Cain). 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Gray

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 11:37 AM, Ouagadougou said:

tI guess asking those ordained of God as "prophets, seers and revelators," to rise above the hate and smoke of their time (and to have the power of discernment) is too much to ask of them.  If Benson was a "man of his time," then how was he, in any way, an actual prophet/apostle if he couldn't discern the hate/racism that existed during his time?  Perhaps prophets are fallible and just men like the rest of us ...with no special powers/ability to perceive truth; perhaps being an apostle is just a position that any person could fill (if this is your interpretation).  

Do LDS GA's have any special foresight or knowledge not available to other men?  No. They are just men doing the best they can with the callings they have been given...their one difference from the rest of us is that they haveg been given a special responsibility to oversee the needs of the church and its members...and with this calling (which incidentally provides them with quite a comfortable existence beyond the basic needs of life)  gives them complete freedom from the worries that might distract the rest of us and offers them a level of freedom to give all of their time to focus on the specific needs of the church and its members.  And just like other leaders of industry who focus on the needs of their respective companies, LDS GA's can use their human minds and innovate and create policy and direction for the church.  It's quite obvious that Benson was a man of his times who held no special foresight or unique knowledge, who clung to the bias's and apologetic scaffolding that was created to justify the priesthood ban of men of African decent.  Nothing in the address quoted by the OP would suggest that Benson was anything but a white man of privilege who inherited a racist policy from those who preceded him and continued to perpetrate and justify a policy that even the church has now admitted was born out of the racism present in Brigham Young's time and continued by those who succeeded him.. 

At the time that Benson delivered this address the church was in the "justification" period of the priesthood ban.  Society was moving on and the church was still in the grips of their closely held religious beliefs...but societal pressure was mounting...and good men like President Kimball who spent 24/7 protecting the church...saw the need for change.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I wasn't talking about civil rights per se, just the cause of equality in general. I doubt the Jim Crow laws in the south did much to improve attitudes toward black people. Ditto for the priesthood ban, which spawned all those racist theories you refer to (and was itself implemented based on a racist theory of blacks carrying the curse of Ham/Cain). 

The “cause of equality in general” is a rather broad and general idea (are you talking about a social, civic or religious cause?). What is it exactly, and does the Church have a doctrine on equality, or any principle, practice or policy specifically addressing it (I think not)?

Jim Crow laws got enough people fired up enough to empathize with black people, which led to their removal from the books. The priesthood ban was offensive to some, but could not be addressed through legislation. My understanding, taking the explanations by those involved at their word, is that its removal by revelation was to address the need to reconcile existing policy and practice with the rapidly realizing commission, spurred at a great pace by divine revelation and assistance, to bring the Gospel blessings to all parts of the earth, and not an outgrowth of expanding theories about civil rights, tolerance or equality within society and politics.

As pointed out a number of times, racist religious theories predated the ban by at least 100 years, and clearly some LDS people with racist leanings would continue to come up with fresh ones (and which certainly would have been developed without a ban in place) as they sought to make the new teachings of the restoration fit their views. Even science became more racist in these same years of the 19^th century in many ways, Darwin included: though he was against slavery, he shared some clearly racist conclusions in The Descent of Man. So likewise the ban, set up among a people that were by and large anti-slavery, of itself spurned no racist theory that the teachings of the Restoration would not have been used for anyway (by those who had such social views).

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The “cause of equality in general” is a rather broad and general idea (are you talking about a social, civic or religious cause?). What is it exactly, and does the Church have a doctrine on equality, or any principle, practice or policy specifically addressing it (I think not)?

 

Jim Crow laws got enough people fired up enough to empathize with black people, which led to their removal from the books. The priesthood ban was offensive to some, but could not be addressed through legislation. My understanding, taking the explanations by those involved at their word, is that its removal by revelation was to address the need to reconcile existing policy and practice with the rapidly realizing commission, spurred at a great pace by divine revelation and assistance, to bring the Gospel blessings to all parts of the earth, and not an outgrowth of expanding theories about civil rights, tolerance or equality within society and politics.

 

As pointed out a number of times, racist religious theories predated the ban by at least 100 years, and clearly some LDS people with racist leanings would continue to come up with fresh ones (and which certainly would have been developed without a ban in place) as they sought to make the new teachings of the restoration fit their views. Even science became more racist in these same years of the 19^th century in many ways, Darwin included: though he was against slavery, he shared some clearly racist conclusions in The Descent of Man. So likewise the ban, set up among a people that were by and large anti-slavery, of itself spurned no racist theory that the teachings of the Restoration would not have been used for anyway (by those who had such social views).

 

Not so much.

SEE http://www.godofevolution.com/no-ken-ham-darwin-was-not-a-racist/

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Do LDS GA's have any special foresight or knowledge not available to other men?  No. They are just men doing the best they can with the callings they have been given...their one difference from the rest of us is that they haveg been given a special responsibility to oversee the needs of the church and its members...and with this calling (which incidentally provides them with quite a comfortable existence beyond the basic needs of life)  gives them complete freedom from the worries that might distract the rest of us and offers them a level of freedom to give all of their time to focus on the specific needs of the church and its members.  And just like other leaders of industry who focus on the needs of their respective companies, LDS GA's can use their human minds and innovate and create policy and direction for the church.  It's quite obvious that Benson was a man of his times who held no special foresight or unique knowledge, who clung to the bias's and apologetic scaffolding that was created to justify the priesthood ban of men of African decent.  Nothing in the address quoted by the OP would suggest that Benson was anything but a white man of privilege who inherited a racist policy from those who preceded him and continued to perpetrate and justify a policy that even the church has now admitted was born out of the racism present in Brigham Young's time and continued by those who succeeded him.. 

At the time that Benson delivered this address the church was in the "justification" period of the priesthood ban.  Society was moving on and the church was still in the grips of their closely held religious beliefs...but societal pressure was mounting...and good men like President Kimball who spent 24/7 protecting the church...saw the need for change.

Wrong.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not so much.

SEE http://www.godofevolution.com/no-ken-ham-darwin-was-not-a-racist/

I did not say that Darwin was a racist, but that his science became influenced by racist thinking of the day. He did write, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." That his science was co-opted by those with an unlikable social/political agenda was not his doing, however, any more than the Lord's revelations.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Wrong.

Whew...Thanks for settling that matter...now we can all move along to a new subject...when The Nehor has spoken the thinking is done.

[Jeanne]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Whew...Thanks for settling that matter...now we can all move along to a new subject...when The Nehor has spoken the thinking is done.

Wrong.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Whew...Thanks for settling that matter...now we can all move along to a new subject...when The Nehor has spoken the thinking is done.

No, I am not that arrogant. Better to say that the best thinking has been done.

 

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

I did not say that Darwin was a racist, but that his science became influenced by racist thinking of the day. He did write, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." That his science was co-opted by those with an unlikable social/political agenda was not his doing, however, any more than the Lord's revelations.

Darwin's reference to races is in fact species. The Highland Gorilla is dying out.

[Gray]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

The “cause of equality in general” is a rather broad and general idea (are you talking about a social, civic or religious cause?). What is it exactly, and does the Church have a doctrine on equality, or any principle, practice or policy specifically addressing it (I think not)?

The priesthood ban was certainly a case of inequitable treatment of black people. The current ban against women is a similar case. Currently the church opposes racism in all its forms, which is real progress. 

 

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

Jim Crow laws got enough people fired up enough to empathize with black people, which led to their removal from the books. The priesthood ban was offensive to some, but could not be addressed through legislation. My understanding, taking the explanations by those involved at their word, is that its removal by revelation was to address the need to reconcile existing policy and practice with the rapidly realizing commission, spurred at a great pace by divine revelation and assistance, to bring the Gospel blessings to all parts of the earth, and not an outgrowth of expanding theories about civil rights, tolerance or equality within society and politics.

 

As pointed out a number of times, racist religious theories predated the ban by at least 100 years, and clearly some LDS people with racist leanings would continue to come up with fresh ones (and which certainly would have been developed without a ban in place) as they sought to make the new teachings of the restoration fit their views. Even science became more racist in these same years of the 19^th century in many ways, Darwin included: though he was against slavery, he shared some clearly racist conclusions in The Descent of Man. So likewise the ban, set up among a people that were by and large anti-slavery, of itself spurned no racist theory that the teachings of the Restoration would not have been used for anyway (by those who had such social views).

 

Yes, Jim Crow laws got people fired up, but in both directions. I'm not arguing that racism wouldn't have existed without the ban. Conservative Protestant churches have a long history of racism. But racism begets more racism - at least that's been my observation. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The priesthood ban was certainly a case of inequitable treatment of black people. The current ban against women is a similar case. Currently the church opposes racism in all its forms, which is real progress.

Yes, Jim Crow laws got people fired up, but in both directions. I'm not arguing that racism wouldn't have existed without the ban. Conservative Protestant churches have a long history of racism. But racism begets more racism - at least that's been my observation. 

As you can see, there is no LDS “equality doctrine” at the foundation of her practices and policies, and so the priesthood restriction was never out of line, doctrinally-speaking. And unlike your observation about the perpetuation of racism, the ban didn’t beget other bans. In addition, by including the practice of not ordaining women, you’ve tagged the restriction outside the category of racism. The priesthood is still restricted (e.g. age, worthiness interviews). Of course in all this the Church is often portrayed as out of step with more advanced society, but the kingdom is not of this world anyway.

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As you can see, there is no LDS “equality doctrine” at the foundation of her practices and policies, and so the priesthood restriction was never out of line, doctrinally-speaking.

The scriptures teach an equality doctrine, but it has taken quite a long time for that to even begin to sink into LDS doctrine and practices. 

 

Quote

 

And unlike your observation about the perpetuation of racism, the ban didn’t beget other bans.

The ban begat more racism and racist ideas.

Quote

In addition, by including the practice of not ordaining women, you’ve tagged the restriction outside the category of racism. The priesthood is still restricted (e.g. age, worthiness interviews). Of course in all this the Church is often portrayed as out of step with more advanced society, but the kingdom is not of this world anyway.

 

Often the big breakthroughs in morality happen outside of the church first. We're very slow moving, so it takes time for us to catch up. We finally caught up to the fact that racism is evil. We're still learning in other areas. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Gray

[waveslider]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

The scriptures teach an equality doctrine, but it has taken quite a long time for that to even begin to sink into LDS doctrine and practices. 

Where do the scriptures teach equality as doctrine? I guess it helps to define what you mean by equality because we do know that the scriptures teach that God is no respecter of persons, but to say something like men and women are equal isn't right. Women do certain things much better than men do and vice versa. Not equal in the sense that a woman should be doing a man's role, or a man should be doing a woman's, but they should be equally yoked, meaning that they should be doing their fare share of the work in harmony with each other in order for things to be done properly. As a single parent I know what I am talking about. No matter how hard I have tried, there are certain things I haven't been able to give my kids properly. Also people of the same genders aren't even equal. Some people are better at certain things than others are. The scriptures teach of different gifts being given to each of us, so that together we can edify everyone involved. We are told that we are the body of Christ and we are given an example of comparing an ear to an eye, that have two distinctly different purposes but are none the less necessary for the good of the whole.

Equality in the sense of political agendas often turns into a bad thing because it often brings people down in order to make them all the same, instead of lifting people up to a higher standard, even if the original intent was for the opposite..... to lift everyone up. I am not justifying racism by any means. I think we are all one race.... the human race. I also don't think we should be blind to our differences. We should rejoice in what those differences have to offer for the good of all mankind, instead of just having fear and ignorance against those differences that we don't understand. So while society tells us to take a blind eye to differences, I think instead we should be educated properly in order to dispel ignorance which eliminates those fears that the ignorant teaching of racism brings. In the words of Denis Leary, “Racism isn’t born, folks. It’s taught. I have a 2-year-old son. Know what he hates? Naps. End of list.” Just my two cents worth anyway.

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Where do the scriptures teach equality as doctrine? I guess it helps to define what you mean by equality because we do know that the scriptures teach that God is no respecter of persons, but to say something like men and women are equal isn't right. Women do certain things much better than men do and vice versa. Not equal in the sense that a woman should be doing a man's role, or a man should be doing a woman's, but they should be equally yoked, meaning that they should be doing their fare share of the work in harmony with each other in order for things to be done properly. As a single parent I know what I am talking about. No matter how hard I have tried, there are certain things I haven't been able to give my kids properly. Also people of the same genders aren't even equal. Some people are better at certain things than others are. The scriptures teach of different gifts being given to each of us, so that together we can edify everyone involved. We are told that we are the body of Christ and we are given an example of comparing an ear to an eye, that have two distinctly different purposes but are none the less necessary for the good of the whole.

Equality in the sense of political agendas often turns into a bad thing because it often brings people down in order to make them all the same, instead of lifting people up to a higher standard, even if the original intent was for the opposite..... to lift everyone up. I am not justifying racism by any means. I think we are all one race.... the human race. I also don't think we should be blind to our differences. We should rejoice in what those differences have to offer for the good of all mankind, instead of just having fear and ignorance against those differences that we don't understand. So while society tells us to take a blind eye to differences, I think instead we should be educated properly in order to dispel ignorance which eliminates those fears that the ignorant teaching of racism brings. In the words of Denis Leary, “Racism isn’t born, folks. It’s taught. I have a 2-year-old son. Know what he hates? Naps. End of list.” Just my two cents worth anyway.

 

All are alike unto God, even if human beings see things differently. 

 

Quote

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Martin Luther King Jr., a true prophet who came from outside of the LDS tradition (which is in keeping with the Biblical prophets, who were often outsiders) caught this vision early on. Because we tend not to recognize this type of prophet anymore, we're slower to catch on. We have our King Davids and our Solomons but we reject modern Isaiahs and Jeremiahs because they are outsiders or don't have "authority". 

[Bob Crockett]

In terms of the Civil Rights Act, as one having lived through it although as a child, there was a whale of a lot of good people who opposed it ostensibly on grounds other than racism.  A lot came out about links to communism, and communism was seen as an existential threat.  

Plus, I've read Pres. Kimball's thoughts on miscegenation.   They made good sense to me at the time, as imposing burdens on a marriage that one should not want to bear, but I've way moved on from there long ago.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The scriptures teach an equality doctrine, but it has taken quite a long time for that to even begin to sink into LDS doctrine and practices.

The ban begat more racism and racist ideas.

Often the big breakthroughs in morality happen outside of the church first. We're very slow moving, so it takes time for us to catch up. We finally caught up to the fact that racism is evil. We're still learning in other areas. 

I’m on this thread to talk about the Church’s doctrine, or how she applies the scriptures and revelation in good faith.

You already acknowledged that racism would have still existed without the ban. The disavowed theories listed in the Race and Priesthood article did not arise because of the ban; they (and misunderstood doctrines) were only brought up in attempts to justify it. How do you think the ban begat more racism and racist ideas in the tenets of the LDS faith (specifics, please)?

Morality and religious beliefs are entirely subjective. I tend to not generalize a church and its members as slow- or fast-moving in their capacity to grasp right and wrong, nor as unaware of their unique traditions in comparison the larger society.

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You already acknowledged that racism would have still existed without the ban. The disavowed theories listed in the Race and Priesthood article did not arise because of the ban; they (and misunderstood doctrines) were only brought up in attempts to justify it.

Yes, you're reiterating what I said - the ban inspired new and more creative racism (the attempts to justify it). 

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How do you think the ban begat more racism and racist ideas in the tenets of the LDS faith (specifics, please)?

In the tenets of LDS faith? It's unclear exactly what the boundaries are there. It's a porous wall. But my argument isn't about "official doctrine" (whatever that might mean). The ban inspired new and additional racism. That is clear. 

 

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

Morality and religious beliefs are entirely subjective. I tend to not generalize a church and its members as slow- or fast-moving in their capacity to grasp right and wrong, nor as unaware of their unique traditions in comparison the larger society.

 

 

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

All are alike unto God, even if human beings see things differently. 

 

Quote

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Martin Luther King Jr., a true prophet who came from outside of the LDS tradition (which is in keeping with the Biblical prophets, who were often outsiders) caught this vision early on. Because we tend not to recognize this type of prophet anymore, we're slower to catch on. We have our King Davids and our Solomons but we reject modern Isaiahs and Jeremiahs because they are outsiders or don't have "authority". 

If you will note, I did say:

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I guess it helps to define what you mean by equality because we do know that the scriptures teach that God is no respecter of persons.....

As far as MLK being a prophet, that is a matter of opinion I guess. I don't hold him as such personally and it doesn't have anything to do with my believe in the LDS church. I don't see that MLK did anything more than push forward the Catholic agendas of; 1. Dignity of the human person, 2. Common good and community, and 3. Global solidarity. Communism has similar ideals, but the concentration of power always ends up exactly opposite of those ideals. I am not trying to down play the absolute courage MLK had, and that he truly is a hero for trying to make this world a better place, but MLK's movement, while being of good intentions, was in fact high jacked by those with evil intentions and who were enemies of the free government that the U.S. was supposed to represent. We can see similar movements are being high jacked, and even created, by those same types of enemies to this day.

While some of our church leaders were taught the ignorance and fear that racism is, they like all of us are/were on this Earth to learn and grow.... repenting of our wrong doings as we move towards our Father in Heaven. Flawed prophets and apostles are hardly anything new. I know that other things have been brought up on this thread that point to racist ideals being held by some of our earlier church leaders, but this thread was originally about Elder Benson's talk. When I read that talk I find no reason to think that Elder Benson was saying anything bad about MLK personally. It didn't even seem racist to me, in context of what it was talking about, and in light of the truthfulness of how there are actual communistic/socialistic forces utilizing these types of movements in our own day, as well as back then, which really is moving us towards socialism and away from freedom.

Edited December 7, 2016 by waveslider
I forgot to add a few words.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, waveslider said:

If you will note, I did say:

As far as MLK being a prophet, that is a matter of opinion I guess. I don't hold him as such personally and it doesn't have anything to do with my believe in the LDS church. I don't see that MLK did anything more than push forward the Catholic agendas of; 1. Dignity of the human person, 2. Common good and community, and 3. Global solidarity. Communism has similar ideals, but the concentration of power always ends up exactly opposite of those ideals. I am not trying to down play the absolute courage MLK had, and that he truly is a hero for trying to make this world a better place, but MLK's movement, while being of good intentions, was in fact high jacked by those with evil intentions and who were enemies of the free government that the U.S. was supposed to represent. We can see similar movements are being high jacked, and even created, by those same types of enemies.

Even if true, irrelevant. MLK's message is universal in nature and importance, and transcends petty political concerns. 

 

Quote

While some of our church leaders were taught the ignorance and fear that racism is, they like all of us are/were on this Earth to learn and grow.... repenting of our wrong doings as we move towards our Father in Heaven. Flawed prophets and apostles are hardly anything new. I know that other things have been brought up on this thread that point to racist ideals being held by some of our earlier church leaders, but this thread was originally about Elder Benson's talk. When I read that talk I find no reason to think that Elder Benson was saying anything bad about MLK personally. It didn't even seem racist to me, in context of what it was talking about, and in light of the truthfulness of how there are actual communistic/socialistic forces utilizing these types of movements in our own day, as well as back then, which really is moving us towards socialism and away from freedom.

I think the issue here is that we limit authority within our own narrow circle. The voices that count are our own voices, and that is a huge handicap. If we were to try to put together a Mormon-only professional basketball team, we wouldn't be able to round up enough talent to hope to be competitive. If we limit our prophets to only those within the Mormon tradition, we will face similar spiritual limitations. 

That is not to say that there are not great Mormon prophets or Mormon basketball players, of course. But we are a small group in a big world full of God's children. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Gray

[waveslider]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think the issue here is that we limit authority within our own narrow circle.

It isn't us limiting that authority since that authority comes directly from God. While I admire the strength and courage that MLK had for standing for what he believed in. I have never had the Holy Ghost testify to me that he was a prophet of God, which confirmation of Spirit I had, and do have, of our, "narrow circle," of prophets and apostles. Like I said though I think it is a matter of opinion if you want to hold MLK as a prophet. I won't knock that, but you won't convince me that he was, only the God can do that.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, waveslider said:

It isn't us limiting that authority since that authority comes directly from God. While I admire the strength and courage that MLK had for standing for what he believed in. I have never had the Holy Ghost testify to me that he was a prophet of God, which confirmation of Spirit I had, and do have, of our, "narrow circle," of prophets and apostles. Like I said though I think it is a matter of opinion if you want to hold MLK as a prophet. I won't knock that, but you won't convince me that he was, only the God can do that.

I have a spiritual conviction that he was a prophet. Of course in the ancient Hebrew tradition, prophets were not priesthood holders. That was for the Levites. 

[waveslider]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

....prophets were not priesthood holders. That was for the Levites. 

I haven't studied all the prophets, Moses, who was the first prophet after the tribe of Levi formed from Levi's children, had a mother and a father who were both descendants of Levi, as is evident in Exodus 2:

"1  And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.
2  And the woman conceived, and bare a son....."
Exodus 2:1-2

Are you sure that they all weren't from the tribe of Lehi?

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I haven't studied all the prophets, Moses, who was the first prophet after the tribe of Levi formed from Levi's children, had a mother and a father who were both descendants of Levi, as is evident in Exodus 2:

"1  And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.
2  And the woman conceived, and bare a son....."
Exodus 2:1-2

Are you sure that they all weren't from the tribe of Lehi?

According to this at least, the following were from the tribe of Judah:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Judah#Character

 

Quote

Indeed, many of the Jewish leaders and prophets of the Hebrew Bible claimed membership in the tribe of Judah. For example, the literary prophets Isaiah, Amos, Habakkuk, Joel, Micah, Obadiah, Zechariah, and Zephaniah, all belonged to the tribe.