Did Pres. McKay Try to Rescind Ban in the 1955?

[aussieguy55]

Hugh B Browns contribution to the debate on the ban.

https://gospeltangents.com/2018/05/23/hugh-brown-end-ban-1962/

If apostles are entitled to revelation why couldn't  Brown   just pray and receive confirmation of the ban? 

[aussieguy55]

 

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

 

I question some of what he says, i'd love to see references besides of which there is this

http://thegoateskids.blogspot.ca/2011/02/blacks-and-priesthood.html

[aussieguy55]

If one accepts that God inspires the leaders to appoint certain people to various positions in the LDS church it seems God selected different personalities such as Joseph Fielding Smith with his literal approach to the scriptures and his attacks on evolution and higher criticism of the Bible. Hugh B Brown is a speech to students says the church is not so interested whether they have views that are either orthodox or unorthodox  but that they had ideas.  McConkie tells Eugene England that he is there to teach and it is England's role is to listen. Benson is sent to Europe to get him out of the way because of his political activities.

[Paiute]

The Jaredites in The Book of Mormon were black. They were not descendants of the Patriarchs which became the House of Israel through which “house” the Prophet Ether prophecied the Lord would bless the World in the last days. There is no mention of the Priesthhood in the Book of Ether,  just a genealogy of Jared and his brother. The firstborn of Jaredite rulers did not inherit a birthright or the right to reign. 

Those of you critical of the Presidents of the Church over the past priesthood ban can’t handle that truth and the main reason the Lord wouldn’t remove the ban. You feel superior not equal. It had nothing to do with the Lord’s annointed servants and everything to do with the attitude of the members of the Church.

Similar to the generation of unbelieving children of Israel whom the Lord required to wander in the wilderness for 40 years until they were dead, except two, because they refused to believe Moses. Keep wandering in the wilderness, if you enjoy nature and being a natural man.

When it’s revealed The Book of Mormon mentions the Lord lead and blessed a man named Jared and his brother and all their friends and families to the Land of Promise and thay they had a skin color different than yours, you’ll all be eating crow.

And how you respond to the idea that the Jaredites were black will prove my point.

[Calm]

Quote

When it’s revealed The Book of Mormon mentions the Lord lead and blessed a man named Jared and his brother and all their friends and families to the Land of Promise and thay they had a skin color different than yours, you’ll all be eating crow.

Why eating crow?  For what claims?

Cant handle Jaredites were black?  Not sure why you think that would be an issue.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Calm

[aussieguy55]

If  President McKay was having doubts  about the ban  and asking Lowell Bennion  to do a report on the issue why was God not talking to him about this  or whispering to his soul?

[Jeanne]

8 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

If  President McKay was having doubts  about the ban  and asking Lowell Bennion  to do a report on the issue why was God not talking to him about this  or whispering to his soul?

Good question...and why wait until the civil rights movement and the disaffection of BY University???

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

If  President McKay was having doubts  about the ban  and asking Lowell Bennion  to do a report on the issue why was God not talking to him about this  or whispering to his soul?

Perhaps he was following the verses in the D&C that teach that first we have to study issues out and try to find answers on our own and THEN ask God for revelation on the answer that we believe could be correct.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Good question...and why wait until the civil rights movement and the disaffection of BY University???

The Civil Rights movement was from 1954-1968.  The ban was ended in 1978, 10 years after the Civil Rights Movement ended.  Likewise, racial protests at BYU ended in 1969, 9 years before the ban was removed.  So, it's not at all accurate to say that the church waited for the civil rights movement or the disaffection of BYU.

Edited May 26, 2018 by bluebell

[theplains]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The Civil Rights movement was from 1954-1968.  The ban was ended in 1978, 10 years after the Civil Rights Movement ended.  Likewise, racial protests at BYU ended in 1969, 9 years before the ban was removed.  So, it's not at all accurate to say that the church waiting for the civil rights movement or the disaffection of BYU.

According to this Guardian article back in 2013,  "The church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black
skin is a sign of divine disfavour or curse, ..."

Does this mean 2 Nephi 5:21-23 and Alma 3:6-7 are false historical events?

Thanks,
Jim

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The Civil Rights movement was from 1954-1968.  The ban was ended in 1978, 10 years after the Civil Rights Movement ended.  Likewise, racial protests at BYU ended in 1969, 9 years before the ban was removed.  So, it's not at all accurate to say that the church waited for the civil rights movement or the disaffection of BYU.

Thank you.  It was quite a process.

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, theplains said:

According to this Guardian article back in 2013,  "The church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black
skin is a sign of divine disfavour or curse, ..."

Does this mean 2 Nephi 5:21-23 and Alma 3:6-7 are false historical events?

Thanks,
Jim

I need to go back and re-read the essay article that the Guardian is quoting, but I believe that that statement was said specifically about past reasons given for the racial ban (which applied only to people of African descent and not to everyone with dark skin, as the verses in the BOM are speaking of.

I've got meetings this morning so can't spend more time on this right now but hopefully someone else will chime in.

[CV75]

On 5/26/2018 at 3:09 PM, theplains said:

According to this Guardian article back in 2013,  "The church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black
skin is a sign of divine disfavour or curse, ..."

Does this mean 2 Nephi 5:21-23 and Alma 3:6-7 are false historical events?

Thanks,
Jim

Chiming in for @bluebell. The Book of Mormon is what it says it is. The references you supplied are not theories but a record of a specific curse that had meaning within a specific cultural context. The passage quoted by the Guardian article is taken from an essay on a specific subject in a specific context and should be taken as such in good faith.

Did you see the solicitation at the end of the article?

[aussieguy55]

 

[aussieguy55]

Interesting comments on how Kimball changed the views of the apostles.

[theplains]

On 5/27/2018 at 7:45 PM, CV75 said:

Chiming in for @bluebell. The Book of Mormon is what it says it is. The references you supplied are not theories but a record of a specific curse that had meaning within a specific cultural context.

2 Nephi 5:23 says the Nephites would also be cursed with dark skin if they married the Lamanites.

Within a cultural context, would you indicate an approximate date when this curse was lifted?

Thanks,
Jim

[CV75]

12 hours ago, theplains said:

2 Nephi 5:23 says the Nephites would also be cursed with dark skin if they married the Lamanites.

Within a cultural context, would you indicate an approximate date when this curse was lifted?

Thanks,
Jim

See 3 Nephi 2:15-16, where the Nephite culture was learning to adopt a Zion culture where dark skin has no cultural or spiritual significance as they and the converted Lamanites joined ranks against the Gaddianton robbers (see chapter heading for time frame; context: a Zion culture in the midst of a broader warring culture). By 4 Nephi 1:17, this had been thoroughly accomplished within the new culture (see chapter heading for time frame).

I'm sure you understand that many Lamanites were converted throughout the Book of Mormon, individually and collectively, prior to 5 AD. Yet in most instances the two general groups remained in separate communities. Can you see a parallel between the purpose of the Law of Moses and its fulfillment in Christ, and the duration of the Lamanite curse and the timing of its lifting, and the separation of gentiles and Jews until some time after the earthly ministry of Christ?

[theplains]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm sure you understand that many Lamanites were converted throughout the Book of Mormon, individually and collectively, prior to 5 AD. Yet in most instances the two general groups remained in separate communities. Can you see a parallel between the purpose of the Law of Moses and its fulfillment in Christ, and the duration of the Lamanite curse and the timing of its lifting, and the separation of gentiles and Jews until some time after the earthly ministry of Christ?

I don't see the parallelism.  Would you explain.   

(p.s. I did find a mention in Alma 23:18 - the introductory notes has a time frame of between 90 and 77 B.C.  The
curse was removed from these Lamanites and it did no more follow them.  But it does not indicate if their and
their children's skin colour became white).

Thanks,
Jim

[CV75]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

I don't see the parallelism.  Would you explain.   

(p.s. I did find a mention in Alma 23:18 - the introductory notes has a time frame of between 90 and 77 B.C.  The
curse was removed from these Lamanites and it did no more follow them.  But it does not indicate if their and
their children's skin colour became white).

Thanks,
Jim

There are many ways to read what the curse is and the meaning of skin color in relation to it that I won't get into here (there are many other threads you can look up), because whether the dark or white skin is literal or a manner of speech or social/cultural classification it points to the segregation of unbelieving and faithful communities in terms they understood in their day and place.

The parallel: God segregates and integrates according to His long-term plan. The Jews and Gentiles were segregated under the Law of Moses, not so under the law of the Gospel. The idea is to bring all into one in the fulness of time. The same thing happened among the Nephites and Lamanites who were separate but eventually became one in Christ (2 Nephi 26:33: Nephi had the long view in mind as he wrote this after the curse was set upon the Lamanites).

[theplains]

On 5/29/2018 at 8:43 PM, CV75 said:

The parallel: God segregates and integrates according to His long-term plan. The Jews and Gentiles were segregated under the Law of Moses, not so under the law of the Gospel. The idea is to bring all into one in the fulness of time. The same thing happened among the Nephites and Lamanites who were separate but eventually became one in Christ (2 Nephi 26:33: Nephi had the long view in mind as he wrote this after the curse was set upon the Lamanites).

In your parallel, how were the Gentiles cursed?    Do you believe any Gentiles around the world ever converted to
Judaism so they could be under the Law of Moses?

Jim

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

In your parallel, how were the Gentiles cursed?    Do you believe any Gentiles around the world ever converted to
Judaism so they could be under the Law of Moses?

Jim

 

They weren't, but 2 Nephi 29:5 says they will be if they don't remember the covenant people. But that is not part of the parallel. And of course there were converts to Judaism, gentiles among them. That's a further tangent from the parallel. Do you have any questions about the actual parallel I put forth? Or explain what your beef is with LDS this time around?

Edited June 2, 2018 by CV75

[Royce]

Sort of a gospel hobby of mine this topic. If you want to know nearly all there is to know about the "negro" priesthood ban, I've written a 4 part blogovel on it.

Part 1 is a worldwide overview of "Curse of Cain/Curse of Ham" theology from general Christian and Jewish traditions, along with Muslim and other world cultures, with a bit of slaving traditions thrown in. It culminates in a condensed version of the latest authoritative declaration of the LDS church on "Race and the Priesthood." (Where the current Brethren overtly throw Brigham Young under the doctrinal bus and deny there ever was any LDS doctrine about the spiritual inferiority of the "negro" or that the canon in any way supports the notion of a dark skin being the result of God's disfavor.)

https://realgreattalk.wordpress.com/category/mormonism-and-the-mythical-curse-of-cain-part-1-nevermind-all-that-stuff-about-the-negro/

 

Part 2 gets into LDS theology and how the ban was always in conflict with essentially all the central doctrines of the religion.

https://realgreattalk.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/mormonism-and-the-mythical-curse-of-cain-part-2-why-now/

 

Part 3 explains how Randy Bott got fired from BYU for teaching false doctrine inasmuch as even the BYU Department of Religion, the heart of Mormon theological knowledge, hadn't noticed had been utterly reversed and abandoned quietly in some backroom somewhere and the Brethren never really told anyone about it.

https://realgreattalk.wordpress.com/category/mormonism-and-the-mythical-curse-of-cain-part-3-the-ballad-of-randy-bott/

 

Part 4 is probably where those following this thread should start, as it takes right up with David O McKay and his 1969 attempt to abandon the priesthood ban, which has been noted, was thwarted by Harold B Lee's adamant demand for a "revelation," because it was a "law of God," and only a revelation could supersede a revelation. (Officially, he has been ruled wrong on this.) It contains numerous quotes from LDS prophets and authorities vehemently affirming the notion that it was a revelation, and supported in the canon. (Which again, has been currently ruled false doctrine.) It also explores authoritative LDS claims of "Papal Fallibility" from  a couple-three pointed historical lectures about it, including the most recent conference talk from Dieter Uchtdorf in which he officially confesses that yes, even the prophet can and has led the church astray, at least insofar as Brigham Young and scores of general authorities since his administration and the question of the "negro" is concerned.

https://realgreattalk.wordpress.com/category/mormonism-and-the-mythical-curse-of-cain-part-4-its-a-law-of-god/

 

(Uchtdorf's talk followed Randy Bott's demise as the darling, teacher of the century, educator of the entire missionary force at BYU.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-leader-dieter-uchtdorf-says-church-has-made-mistakes-8862663.html

 

Here's the direct link to Race and the Priesthood, which is the current statement (having been expanded at least once since its original posting) on the subject. I continue to be stunned at how many Latter-day Saints haven't seen this and don't know anything about it. It basically stands every church leader from Brigham Young to Thomas Monson on their heads. 

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

[Royce]

On 5/23/2018 at 7:52 AM, CV75 said:

And as the prophets sought the will of the Lord in the matter, they made no decision until an explicit revelation was received. They might have excused themselves to have proceeded with out it per D&C 58:27-28 ("Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward"), and this also may have well been the justification behind establishing the ban in the first place, but inasmuch as both sets of prophets were keeping the commandments that had been revealed, they would have been held guiltless (verses 29-30).

I think you'll find that the final position of the modern LDS church on the matter is that there actually was no need for a specific revelation, that McKay's original position that it was an inexplicable "policy," not a "doctrine," and that there was no evidence in the canon supporting it, and that there was no revelation demanding it. Even given this, Declaration 2, clearly states only that the ban had been lifted, alluding to this being a time where the justly imposed restriction had been essentially prophesied to eventually come to pass. McConkie's response of course was to scrub that chapter clean and denounce everything he's ever had to say on the matter, with the exception of maintaining in his "Mormon Doctrine," a strong urging, a warning from the "Brethren" against inter-racial marriage, which remained as far as I know from 1978 editions up to its scrapping in 2010, and the scrubbing of any reference to it in any LDS materials quietly thereafter. This too, has been declared "false doctrine" by the church's latest official statement on Race and the Priesthood.

"During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In a private Church council three years after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”⁴

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.⁹

^...

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.¹⁰ According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.¹¹ Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.¹² Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

...

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.^24"

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

The first public suggestion that the Brethren had quietly back-pedalled entirely away from Curse of Cain/Ham theology from any LDS general authority was a PBS interview with Jeffrey R Holland in 2006, in which he called it "folklore," and came close to disowning it entirely, the entire justification of the ban in the first place:

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

All of which leaves us with the conundrum about Declaration 2 in 1978, and the tremendous "revelation" of some God-promised future it was billed to have been then and to this day. In a way it was of course, but we see that ironically, the current official declarations on the matter is that there is no such thing as a "Curse of Cain/Able," never was, there was never any pre-mortal or any other justification for the restriction of "negroes" from the priesthood or temple other than Brigham Young declared it as a "policy" out of the blue one day, and the entire chain of LDS leadership simply embraced the whole notion as divinely mandated out of habit. If it was only ever a "policy," as McKay claimed in the 50's, there was never any reason for a "revelation" to change it, and as merely a presidentially decreed "policy," it could have been abandoned any time after the passing of Brigham Young who pronounced it on his own authority.

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

Way to resurrect a putrid, stinky, smelly thread, Royce!   

(If that's what floats your boat, don't mind me: Have fun!  Welcome to the Board! )