bluebell Posted November 9, 2022 Posted November 9, 2022 10 minutes ago, why me said: When it comes to the priesthood ban it would be important to discuss why there was a ban. We need to remember that blacks did have the priesthood up to a certain date. But what happened to put in the ban? No one knows. 1
Tacenda Posted November 9, 2022 Posted November 9, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Seriously is right. Do you know which group of people was most ready to have the priesthood ban lifted in 1969? Black members of the Church. The Church shouldn't be lagging behind on issues of moral justice, it should be at the forefront of appropriate change. I stand by my claims. We will have to agree to disagree. Well, they're sure dragging their feet with the current statistics and still no black man has served in the quorum of the twelve after 40 or more years. And it took until this year for a black woman to serve in a general presidency! Edited November 9, 2022 by Tacenda
Bernard Gui Posted November 9, 2022 Posted November 9, 2022 10 minutes ago, why me said: When it comes to the priesthood ban it would be important to discuss why there was a ban. We need to remember that blacks did have the priesthood up to a certain date. But what happened to put in the ban? I believe that the purpose of the ban was to spare the Church as much as possible from the divisive tensions surrounding slavery, the Civil War, the so-called Restoration period which I think was mostly a failure, and many other difficulties, until the 13th Amendment could actually be become effective. Then the Church could grow and expand without the rancor that could and would have occurred. It took some time for the US and also the Church to sort out the mess, but when we were ready, it was lifted by revelation. Others may disagree. I’m ok with that. 2
Bernard Gui Posted November 9, 2022 Posted November 9, 2022 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Well, they're sure dragging their feet with the current statistics and still no black man has served in the quorum of the twelve after 40 or more years. And it took until this year for a black woman to serve in a general presidency! You could send in a few names for their consideration. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 9, 2022 Posted November 9, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, gav said: Perhaps all this priesthood ban stuff needs an African perspective? I've posted on this forum at least twice in the past the perspectives of two African housemates (one past, one current) on prior priesthood restrictions. No one cares because what these men think and say doesn't further any agendas. Edited November 9, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan 4
Popular Post pogi Posted November 9, 2022 Popular Post Posted November 9, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: I believe that the purpose of the ban was to spare the Church as much as possible from the divisive tensions surrounding slavery, the Civil War, the so-called Restoration period which I think was mostly a failure, and many other difficulties, until the 13th Amendment could actually be become effective. Then the Church could grow and expand without the rancor that could and would have occurred. It took some time for the US and also the Church to sort out the mess, but when we were ready, it was lifted by revelation. Others may disagree. I’m ok with that. To voice my opinion (which I know you are ok with), one would hope that God would have a better long-game/big picture perspective than that. It seems that the ban has caused far more divisive tensions for the church then not having the ban would have ever created. No one seemed to care too much about the handful of blacks who held the priesthood, secluded far out in the west. All the tension towards the blacks in the church seemed to come from leadership. No one from the outside had to force our hand or apply any real pressure before the ban took place. If the goal was to reduce divisive tensions, then it seems that polygamy should have been on the chopping block long before blacks and the priesthood. As heated as racism was, I think polygamy was a much bigger issue for most people. The negative effects on faith and membership numbers caused by the ban over time is really astounding. The ban is always a top reason people list for losing faith in our priesthood leaders. If God wanted to truly save the church from divisive tension, why didn't he tell Brigham Young to stop making up bogus stories in an attempt to justify the ban that would come back to haunt us for generations? Edited November 10, 2022 by pogi 5
Bernard Gui Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I believe there are likely times when leaders, like the rest of us, aren’t open to new revelation only because they believe God has already spoke on an issue or the issue has otherwise been decided. At such time’s having someone who says “why are we doing it this way/I’m struggling with this because it doesn’t make sense to me/let’s do this/etc. might cause leaders to revisit an issue with the Lord that they might not have sought further guidance on otherwise. Were the ban lifted by a revelation given to President McKay, do you believe that some of his counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve would have rejected it? What do you think they might have done? I have no doubt they would have wholeheartedly embraced it, even those who previously resisted. Edited November 10, 2022 by Bernard Gui
bluebell Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Were the ban lifted by a revelation given to President McKay, do you believe that some of his counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve would have rejected it? What do you think they might have done? I have no doubt they would have wholeheartedly embraced it, even those who previously resisted. I have no idea. I don't know those men enough to even guess what their reactions would have been and would be uncomfortable speaking for them.
Bernard Gui Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 8 minutes ago, pogi said: To voice my opinion (which I know you are ok with), one would hope that God would have a better long-game/big picture perspective than that. It seems that the ban has caused far more divisive tensions for the church then not having the ban would have ever created. No one seemed to care too much about the handful of blacks who held the priesthood, secluded far out in the west. All the tension towards the blacks in the church seemed to come from leadership. No one from the outside had to force our hand or apply any real pressure before the ban took place. If the goal was to reduce divisive tensions, then it seems that polygamy should have been on the chopping block long before blacks and the priesthood. As heated as racism was, I think polygamy was a much bigger issue for most people. The negative effects on faith and membership numbers caused by the ban over time is really astounding. The ban is always a top reason people list for losing faith in our priesthood leaders. If God wanted to truly save the church from divisive tension, why didn't he tell Brigham Young to stop making up bogus stories in an attempt to justify the ban that would come back to haunt us for generations? Thank you for your excellent comments. Let me respond. Why didn’t he just wait until 1978 to call a prophet, reveal the Book of Mormon, and start the Restoration? I don’t know. It certainly would have avoided a lot the grief and death the early Saints had to suffer. How do we know BY was lying? Do we think God let him suffer and sacrifice all he did for the Restoration only to abandon Brigham when he supposedly went rogue and invented a monumental lie? I don’t believe that for a minute. The Restoration was too important for God to ignore that. Joseph had been promptly corrected whenever he messed with the plan. Surely he would not ignore such a monumental mistake made by Joseph’s most faithful friend. I don’t believe BY snookered God by faking a revelation, neither with this nor with polygamy. If he did, then perhaps he deserves the cancellation some wish to impose on him. God was quick to call erring Judah, Israel, Jews, Lamanites, Nephites and others to repentance. So why would he let such a colossal mistake derail the Restoration for which he had spent centuries in preparation? I do not believe God was casual about the Restoration. I think the ban was according to his plan, as I have explained. he hid the Church in the wilderness where it could grow independent of the racial chaos surrounding it. Given the existing animus against the Saints, freed or escaping slaves going to Salt Lake in numbers would just have attracted more attention and perhaps violent interference. I believe God knew this and moved accordingly. The ban does not haunt me. I lived during the time it was in effect and when it was lifted. I believe God’s plans even when we don’t understand them or think he should have done things another way. They may seem odd to us especially when they may result in discomfort for his children, but if there is harm, it will be covered by the Atonement. It would be interesting to listen in on the conversation when Nephi and Laban met in the Spirit World. I wonder if Nephi sought forgiveness or if Laban still held a grudge. Of course this this is my personal belief. I have come to these conclusions after long study and thought that began in Honduras in 1966 when we had to explain the ban to potential converts. I don’t expect anyone to agree, but just to consider it. 1
Bernard Gui Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 (edited) 37 minutes ago, bluebell said: I have no idea. I don't know those men enough to even guess what their reactions would have been and would be uncomfortable speaking for them. I heard them often in Conferences and meetings on radio, TV, and in person, read their writings, listened to their counsel. At that time they even came to wards to ordain new bishops. It was at such an occasion that God miraculously revealed to my father (a non-member) that the apostle who had his arm around him (one who is now a favorite punching bag of critics in and out of the Church), was a true apostle of Jesus Christ. I am confident of their faithfulness and loyalty the Lord. IMO, they would have reacted the same way as the apostles did in 1978. Edited November 10, 2022 by Bernard Gui
bluebell Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I heard them often in Conferences and meetings on radio, TV, and in person, read their writings, listened to their counsel. At that time they even came to wards to ordain new bishops. It was at such an occasion that God miraculously revealed to my father (a non-member) that the apostle who had his arm around him (one who is now a favorite punching bag of critics), was a true apostle of Jesus Christ. I am confident of their faithfulness and loyalty the Lord. IMO, they would have reacted the same way as the apostles did in 1978. I do not doubt their faithfulness or loyalty to the Lord. Perhaps they would have reacted exactly as you described. But I do not feel comfortable saying that I know something that I don't know. Edited November 10, 2022 by bluebell
Bernard Gui Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Aren’t we taught that God accomplished his work through us? Maybe ACT is the prompting the church leadership needs. See Lester Bush’s essay. The camel has his plans, and the camel driver has his. See Jacob 4:10.
Bernard Gui Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: I do not doubt their faithfulness or loyalty to the Lord. Perhaps they would have reacted exactly as you described. But I do not feel comfortable saying that I know something that I don't know. Got it.
gav Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Please give it here with quotes from African members. The African members I know have no heartburn with it, considering it a thing of the past. I had two LDS African students in Washington. They were cruelly treated by some of the African American students in our school, but not by the youth in our ward. We have an African branch here in our Kentucky stake. Given our location, one might think they are not accepted as brothers and sisters, but that would be a mistake. We have all been prepared for this. The two African American members with whom we were friends at the time of the ban waited patiently in great faith because they believed that they would receive the promised blessings. When they did, there was much celebration…no one left the Church. We were prepared. Has anybody from the "American bubble" bothered to look outside the bubble to consider what was going on, on the African continent and is now going on, on the African continent with regards to its colonial liberation, apartheid, the cold war, to current exceptionally rapid growth areas of the church. This was a policy specific to some of the peoples of Africa and it's diaspora not simply to general persons of colour. Is the American church aware the Judah is coming up with much higher percentages in the lineage declarations of patriarchal blessings across the African continent? Are they aware that in certain "areas" in Africa that the church is growing at a record pace only matched by the kirtland era of church history? Are they aware that significant dates relating to the ban match up well to the collapse of the Soviet Union and opening up of the eastern bloc where many of the other ten tribes are disproportionately represented in lineage declarations. The first temple in Africa(Apartheid Johannesburg) and also the the first temple behind the Iron Curtain(East Germany) with dedicated in exactly the same year 1985. The ban precedes the first temple in Africa by the significant cycle of 7 years. The lamanites are on the move across the US southern border in record numbers. Africa is on the rise containing remnants of scattered Judah. Jerusalem is finally the recognised capital of Israel since 2017 followed by the Abraham accords. 2017 is a 50 year Jubilee cycle after 1967 when Jerusalem and the Temple Mount was captured in the six day war, which was another 50 year Jubilee cycle after the Balfour Declaration when the British empire declared Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. The Ancient Jubilee commemoration was given for the liberation and restoration of the land to the inheritance lineages. The Balfour Declaration was a 3 1/2 year cycle after the July crisis and beginning of World War I which would result ultimately in the collapse of 4 imperial empires. World War II was a natural outgrowth of the first and resulted in the final demise of the rest of the Imperial empires of Europe and the rise of the two spheres of influence during the Cold War era. This status quo only ended with the demise of the Soviet Union resulting in a single globalised world with the US at its head. There is now war and displacement of many in Eastern Europe with more to come where many of the 10 tribes are potentially sitting. The church is in decline amongst those of European descent, its traditional stronghold. The Gentiles (Europeans and colonies) nurtured the beginning of the latter-day gathering but that gathering has moved on to a new phase. The times of the Gentiles is clearly over and the next pieces of the chessboard are on the move. The ban had little to do with race and far more to do with the Lord's timing for the latter days. Joseph's 10 brothers came down to meet him in Egypt during a time of famine, a shortage of wheat. Ukraine and Russia are the lands north of Syria(Assyria) and Israel and one of the major wheat baskets of the world. This war has plunged the Western world into all kinds of economic and energy famine. Nuclear incidents in this war have the potential to really set people on the move and disrupt global food security. Is this how the 10 tribes return to the land of Joseph's (Lehi's) inheritance? See President Hinckley's three talks emphasising Joseph's interpretation of pharaoh's dream given over a seven year period from 1998 to 2005. September 11 to the 2008 global financial crisis was a 7 year period and the global economy continues to reel with de-globalization an increasingly inevitable result. The ever growing political polarisation and turmoil in the US is also no coincidence... we are watching Book of Mormon and latter day prophecy being fulfilled before our eyes while people quibble about a few ultimately irrelevant social justice stumbling blocks. If the nations of this earth were to lift their focus away from the mundane and the distracting, for even a few minutes, they might perceive the vast cycles of heaven in motion marching to the tick of the Lord's clock. Edited November 10, 2022 by gav Added continent identification 1
JAHS Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I believe that the purpose of the ban was to spare the Church as much as possible from the divisive tensions surrounding slavery, the Civil War, the so-called Restoration period which I think was mostly a failure, and many other difficulties, until the 13th Amendment could actually be become effective. Then the Church could grow and expand without the rancor that could and would have occurred. It took some time for the US and also the Church to sort out the mess, but when we were ready, it was lifted by revelation. Others may disagree. I’m ok with that. I think it was simply not prudent for the Church at that time to treat the blacks as equals. There would not only have been pressure from the outside but from the inside as well, since at the time most people, including many church members, regarded them as nothing more than slaves. Kind of like how the word of wisdom evolved. President Joseph F. Smith taught that the Lord did not insist on strict compliance in the early years in order to allow a generation addicted to noxious substances some years to discard bad habits. Similarly the church and the world needed time to temper their racist attitudes before they could accept the blacks as equals. 2
Tacenda Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 4 hours ago, pogi said: To voice my opinion (which I know you are ok with), one would hope that God would have a better long-game/big picture perspective than that. It seems that the ban has caused far more divisive tensions for the church then not having the ban would have ever created. No one seemed to care too much about the handful of blacks who held the priesthood, secluded far out in the west. All the tension towards the blacks in the church seemed to come from leadership. No one from the outside had to force our hand or apply any real pressure before the ban took place. If the goal was to reduce divisive tensions, then it seems that polygamy should have been on the chopping block long before blacks and the priesthood. As heated as racism was, I think polygamy was a much bigger issue for most people. The negative effects on faith and membership numbers caused by the ban over time is really astounding. The ban is always a top reason people list for losing faith in our priesthood leaders. If God wanted to truly save the church from divisive tension, why didn't he tell Brigham Young to stop making up bogus stories in an attempt to justify the ban that would come back to haunt us for generations? Why would God or the angel with the drawn sword insist Joseph marry Helen Mar Kimball too?
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 11 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Why would God or the angel with the drawn sword insist Joseph marry Helen Mar Kimball too? Because he didn't consult with you first? 3
Calm Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 6 hours ago, Tacenda said: Well, they're sure dragging their feet with the current statistics and still no black man has served in the quorum of the twelve after 40 or more years. And it took until this year for a black woman to serve in a general presidency! How long does it usually take a man to rise from priest to apostle these days?
Calm Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I believe that the purpose of the ban was to spare the Church as much as possible from the divisive tensions surrounding slavery, the Civil War, the so-called Restoration period which I think was mostly a failure, and many other difficulties, until the 13th Amendment could actually be become effective. Then the Church could grow and expand without the rancor that could and would have occurred. It took some time for the US and also the Church to sort out the mess, but when we were ready, it was lifted by revelation. Others may disagree. I’m ok with that. Then it’s pretty disturbing that the ban was implemented throughout the Church perpetuating that blacks were inherently inferior. 4
Tacenda Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 5 minutes ago, Calm said: How long does it usually take a man to rise from priest to apostle these days? I did take that in to account, for instance Elder Renlund is 70 this year. He would have been 26 when the PH Ban was lifted. So say many black young men at the age of 26 or younger could have gone up through the ranks, not great odds since at the time I wonder if there were very many. It took until 2019 before the first general authority seventy was called. So I guess one day a black man will become an apostle and even a prophet one day. https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-appoints-first-black-man-to-general-authority
Calm Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 (edited) My guess is the Book of Mormon had to be revealed then during a time and place when communication for sharing the gospel could move fast enough and people were capable of traveling to the chosen community in large enough numbers to rapidly build up a large enough community for the Church to survive, yet before there came a time where skepticism about religion in general (save perhaps one’s own beliefs) would shut down even the small percentage that were open to receiving the gospel earlier in our world’s history. Also a time where semiisolation of a large community could still occur in order to develop a significant number identifying within a community as one, with a shared culture and shared heritage, to build into a core resource to provide the means to spread the gospel worldwide when communication and travel became almost instantaneous globally in comparison to past times. There is no reason to conclude Brigham Young was lying based on his actual comments and not what others have assumed happened. His own bias and experience led him to understand teachings of Joseph through the lens of his previously acquired beliefs about blacks…pretty much as what happens to us all when we hear something new from someone teaching with the Spirit. We can track developments and events up to the time he made his first announcement of a ban and what happened after, including continuing discussion on if there should even be a ban…hardly the position that would have been taken if a revelation had been given, imo. What occurred appears to be assumptions about the history that were made without foundation, accepting certain unrevealed views as right while forgetting revealed certain teachings (all are alike unto God). My biggest question is why Joseph F. Smith changed his position which cemented the ban into practically canonized state (but not quite). He never shared his reasoning that I am aware of and we know he had documentation contradicting his position. I don’t believe he was lying either, something convinced him Imo the certificates were given in error or that Joseph changed his mind, imo. But what… ”Joseph F. Smith Changes His Position Relative to Blacks Joseph F. Smith abandons his former position on Elijah Abel’s status and now claims that Joseph Smith declared Abel’s ordination “null and void.” (Council Minutes, 26 August, as quoted in Neither White nor Black,Signature Books, pg. 140) Historians today don’t understand this reversal, as Smith had Abel’s ordination certificates which supported his earlier (strongly held) position and don’t support his new views.” http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/history Edited November 10, 2022 by Calm 3
Calm Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 13 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I did take that in to account, for instance Elder Renlund is 70 this year. He would have been 26 when the PH Ban was lifted. So say many black young men at the age of 26 or younger could have gone up through the ranks, not great odds since at the time I wonder if there were very many. It took until 2019 before the first general authority seventy was called. So I guess one day a black man will become an apostle and even a prophet one day. https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-appoints-first-black-man-to-general-authority And he would have been an elder at the very least and possibly a mission under his belt, so adding 9 more years to when he was ordain makes sense to me (1 year to function as a priest, the other 8 to function as an elder to get to Elder Renlund’s level of experience). It certainly could have been done faster if certain individuals were tagged as likely candidates for apostles and given callings one right after another that walked them through the leadership ladder or a general affirmative action type of program, but traditionally not how things were done in the Church and I expect the decision was made that traditional forms of leadership progression would be best since it had so far provided the Church with a pretty stable, committed selection of top leaders. 2
Popular Post Calm Posted November 10, 2022 Popular Post Posted November 10, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, JAHS said: I think it was simply not prudent for the Church at that time to treat the blacks as equals. There would not only have been pressure from the outside but from the inside as well, since at the time most people, including many church members, regarded them as nothing more than slaves. Kind of like how the word of wisdom evolved. President Joseph F. Smith taught that the Lord did not insist on strict compliance in the early years in order to allow a generation addicted to noxious substances some years to discard bad habits. Similarly the church and the world needed time to temper their racist attitudes before they could accept the blacks as equals. It seems so strange though to see this argument when we went ahead and did the opposite for plural marriage and even were willing to destroy the Church over it if the Lord desired. Why was plural marriage not a bridge too far, but equality for blacks was? Plural marriage was not in the least “prudent”. Edited November 10, 2022 by Calm 5
Calm Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 (edited) “God was quick to call erring Judah, Israel, Jews, Lamanites, Nephites and others to repentance. So why would he let such a colossal mistake derail the Restoration for which he had spent centuries in preparation?” At times he was quick, sure, at other times not so much. It was thousands of years getting from the establishment of Israel as a people to the birth of Christ. How many years did he allow the priesthood authority to be essentially absent from the world when he could have quickly called to repentance the erring Christians and yet we believe he withheld for over a thousand years. He had time to prepare his people as he desired. Same as he does now most likely. He is the one controlling the timeline after all. An intelligent and compassionate parent, the best in existence, he is not a one size fits all teacher. Sometimes there are 40 years of wandering in the wilderness till the generation grown up in Egypt with habits of thought established there lived out their time and a new generation used to being led by a pillar of cloud and light takes center stage (similar to the 90 years between the revelation of the WoW and its implementation as a requirement for temple attendance). Other times there is a day and a night and a day of light showing the power of the truth to all, convincing many but still allowing the unbeliever to live side by side with the believer or even a brazen serpent only needing to be looked at to live…which quickly culled those who would never bend their knee to God in the way as he desired, leaving the more teachable alive to be taught his way. Edited November 12, 2022 by Calm 3
Bernard Gui Posted November 10, 2022 Posted November 10, 2022 10 hours ago, Calm said: Then it’s pretty disturbing that the ban was implemented throughout the Church perpetuating that blacks were inherently inferior. That was indeed a sad mistake resulting mostly from the pre-mortal existence theory, which has been corrected. When I look back, we had some information available such as 2 Nephi 26, but either we either ignored it or didn’t recognize it. Other than foreordination as described in Alma 13 and Abraham 3 We don’t know much about how our growth there affects our situation here.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now