Suzie

I am curious. You ask with relation to the ban or simply "racist"?

Keeping in mind that Fijians were under the ban for a period of time as stated in my post, may I repeat what Margin previously said? It reminds me of the saying "I am not racist, I have a friend who is black". Also, keeping always a historical context. How many Melanesians, Fijians, Negritoes were around Brigham Young and some consequent leaders? If we give the possibility of prejudice a little thought, it is not crazy to think they didn't have issues with these folks because they were not around them, they were far away but blacks of African origin, did.

I read all your points carefully but I fail to see your demonstration other than "faith" in the Prophets and leaders. Historically speaking as you said, you was not able to give an explanation to the facts I presented. Therefore, in my view the evidence that the Lord was behind the ban is not "overwhelming". Having said that, I respect your view and testimony. Thanks for sharing.

That's not accurate (I think I wrote this before earlier in this thread). In 1955 Melanesian "blacks" were given the Priesthood under the direction of David O. McKay, because THEN they were defined/considered from a different linage. The Negritos of the Philippines were given the Priesthood a little earlier. However, previously Fijians were banned from the Priesthood.

I thought in adding to the mix a quote by J. Reuben Clark. I'll be the first to admit he isn't my favorite past leader to quote on this issue because of his views on the separation of blood in hospitals as well as his views on the Jews...but maybe that's for an entire different topic however I thought in adding this quote:

Just like the topic of Blacks and the Priesthood: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36633-issues-brigham-young.html I studied and continue studying the topic, I don't have a full understanding of these issues and I don't think I will ever have it (can anyone?)However, since I'm a Church history researcher my position may not be the typical one you are seeking. Most members still think the reason for polygamy was a way to deal with the numerous single mothers or women in the Church who needed a husband. Entirely a myth. The commandment to practice polygamy, it's recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132 (one of our books of scripture). However, there is so much into the mix from whether these marriages involved intimacy or not, from post-manifesto plural marriages (including an Apostle and Prophet) to John Taylor allegedly receiving a vision from Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith who asked him to continue the practice and much, much, much more. It's endless to be honest! Maybe you would like to address specific issues within this topic? Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I meant that I don't support Polygamy (just as I don't support Gay Marriage) HOWEVER, I don't see an issue with these practices for those who don't think like me (legally speaking).

I can't answer that because I don't know him personally and what he shows on TV is just that...a "show" and it irritates me.

It reminded me when a friend of mine called at the house of a friend I was staying for the weekend (she was also a member of the Church). The phone rings, she answers the phone....pauses for a minute, hands me the phone and very shocked says "Ummm...NEPHI is on the phone".

You are right so I asked: Where is the revelation concerning the ban? We voted by common consent when the revelation of lifting the ban was revealed but what about when it was placed? I will explain a little further on my post some of my questions. You mean, the Church who (as any other institution) is very concern about it's image (after our past history) coming forward and saying NOW (after all the work they are doing with PR) to say it was a mistake or repudiate it? Was the Lord behind the placement of the ban? (one of my questions). I look at this purely in a historical context and it doesn't make sense to me. As an example, Zebedee Coltrin says that in 1834, the Prophet Joseph received a revelation that blacks are not to be ordained to the Priesthood (now he says this in 1879, more than 40 years have passed) and he proves to be an unreliable witness, however Elijah Abel was ordained on March 3rd, 1836 by Joseph Smith Jr himself. He is able to get his washing and annointing in Kirtland. He is ordained a Seventy in 1836 by Zebedee Coltrin himself (no, I am not kidding, maybe they didn't have medication for memory loss back then). In 1839, there was a meeting that discussed Elijah Abel, but his priesthood was not questioned by the Prophet. If what Coltrin said was accurate, this wouldn't have been the case. However, in 1843 three Apostles restrict Elijah's missionary work but his priesthood is not questioned at all. A year later, there is another black man ordained to the Priesthood by the youngest brother of Joseph Smith, even Wilford Woodruff makes mention of him (Walker Lewis) on his journal. He mentions that he is an Elder and he is black but again, there is no questioning on his right to hold the Priesthood. Other apostles also visit the city where Brother Lewis live and none of them mention a problem with Brother Lewis. Why I am making mention of all this? Because as you can see there was never an issue of Blacks holding the Priesthood until something terribly wrong happen.... In 1846 a black man named William McCary was baptized and ordained by Orson Hyde (now this bit of history is ironic because he is one who brought up the idea of blacks being less valiant in the pre-existence) A year later however, William thought of himself as a "prophet", and seduced a number of women into polygamy and he was excommunicated. It was a very scandalous situation, not only for what happened but also because these women were white and he was black. Did I need to say more? NOW the whole thing starts getting VERY interesting: DURING THAT SAME YEAR, Brigham Young declares that Blacks are ineligible for certain temple ordinances. The timing is extremely coincidental (if you want to think of it that way), I think it should be taken into consideration and not dismissed quickly. It is well possible that it was a reaction to the whole William McCary polygamous craziness. Margaret Young (who studied a lot about the topic, I put a link earlier in this thread with all this information that Margaret and Darius Grey provided) said that one of the Orsons (she couldn't recall whether it was Hyde or Pratt) I bet it was Hyde said to some of these women (paraphrasing) why in the world would they follow someone who has no right to the Priesthood? It's very interesting the comment because until that time, even with this prohibition of certain temple ordinances, the few blacks were still holding the Priesthood. Brigham Young states after the issue that "it has nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh. We have one of the best elders, an African (walker Lewis) in Lowell." HOWEVER two years later (1849) he declares: So from saying it has nothing to do with blood to NOW (1849) saying it HAS to do with blood, what really happened? The history gets more interesting when Elijah asks to received his endowments but he is denied by Brigham Young (1853). Now Elijah was not stranger to the Church. He was an Elder, he was a Seventy, served two missions and there is no possible explanation of why someone who HOLDS the Priesthood isn't allowed to receive his own endowments. Two years after Brigham Young dies, in 1879 Brother Coltrin claims Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy when Joseph smith Jr. learned that Abel was black (yep, Coltrin didn't seem to want to let it go) however Joseph F. Smith challenged his claim and shows TWO certificates of Abel's re-ordination to the office of Seventy. Now 11 years after Abel's death (1895) Joseph F. Smith again rejects the idea of him being dropped from the priesthood. Elijah's son and grandson are ordained to the Priesthood as far as 1935. But what happened in 1908? Out of the blue and giving no proof or explanation, Joseph F. Smith who defended Abel's priesthood status in more than one occasion, totally reverses his position and declares that Joseph Smith Jr. established that Abel's ordination was "null and void". The same position he refuted before by providing the CERTIFICATES of Elijah Abel! Can you see why for me there is no "overwhelming" evidence that the Lord was behind this ban?

That's true, however keep in mind that in some countries the Church through its leaders discouraged the teaching to Blacks (I think one of the posters in the thread shared his experience during his mission if I am not mistaken).

I know the question was directed to Margin, but I would like to answer it if you don't mind. Yes, I think it's very plausible for many reasons: Out of "respect" to the Prophets and the thinking that whatever he does, speaks and decides is the will of the Lord (a common concept shared here by some posters) to have the courage to overturn something so important a prophet like Brigham Young instituted (can you imagine??). Personally, I am leaning towards pressure from all sources, the growth of the Church and not able to keep up with whatever concept of "blackness" they had (like in Brazil someone being blond with blue eyes yet have African blood). I could imagine the Church was being bombarded with letters, petitions, questions that no longer could keep up.

I agree we don't know the reason for the ban. The rest, yes YOU know. I don't.

There is another Judas, the brother of James mentioned in the book of John (John 14:22). Other writers made mention of him as Thaddaeus, he was known as the steady apostle. See? There is something good about the name.

Nah, we are ladies. Are we anatess? (and now don't tell me you are a man). It always happens to me.

There are many reasons people sustain leaders (and not all of them do it because they feel strong about it like you do). Many sustain them out of respect, others because they believe so and many others out of tradition. Now, don't take me wrong. I didn't make my mind totally yet about what was the cause of the ban, however let me point out that just because there is a possibility that the Lord allowed it doesn't mean He was the one instituting the ban. Makes sense?

I see. I'm a convert and I don't believe in Prophet infallibility (or any other man for that matter). I am a firm believer in following after receiving confirmation.

I believe we should be trusting the Lord, that through His Spirit he will be guiding our leaders therefore if our dear Prophet asks us to now leave everything and go to the wilderness (as the example given), we are not going to be foolish enough to do so without a confirmation from Heavenly Father.

Oh I see. I guess we are seeing this in two completely different ways.

You mean the posts where it brings the possibility of personal bigotry? (did anyone claim it as "fact"?)

Could you please point out the disappointments of this thread? Maybe both of us are in two different pages with regards to this topic. I don't believe every policy (key word: policy) is inspired by the Holy Ghost through His prophet. Nobody denies the good intentions behind some of these policies, however doesn't mean they are all inspired just like not every calling in the Church is done through inspiration.

Well, in my opinion we should all seek for confirmation . It concerns me when people just follow without this confirmation.

Our past history is full of information that we could cover in movies, soap operas and books in a lifetime.

It makes no sense to drop it really since you are the one that brought the LDS position on this topic and both of them talked extensively about it. I just tried to illustrate the fact that the things you find so wrong such as marrying young girls, they should be in jail, etc are the things early Saints went through. Well, don't take it wrong but the information you may seek is what it took me years of study, it's not something that can be passed. However, you may search google for good web sites that may talk about it (non-anti sites). Let me clarify that I do not condone polygamy, however I don't see anything wrong with the practice.

Oh, so you want to become the Christian Police? Not me (no matter how much I disagree with this group or any other for that matter). It's ironic that you stated this because you are describing the early LDS Saints at the time of Joseph Smith. He taught polygamy in secrecy at first, members had to close themselves off to society (in a way), several of them (including leaders) went to jail for practicing polygamy (unlawful cohabitation) and Joseph Smith (among others) married girls who probably you would consider too young to consent. So keeping this in mind (and we are not talking about whether or not God gave a revelation) but just mere historical facts.... What's the difference do you see between THEN and NOW? If you want to put them in jail, then you agree that Joseph and others should have been jailed as well. What's the problem with them claiming they follow the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? Have you ever read what these two leaders taught about polygamy?

So basically, you have the belief that every thing the Prophet says it's the word of God? Is that what you are saying?