Suzie

Luke Johnson (saw the plates, according to John D. Lee) Zerah Pulsipher (didn't actually see the plates but saw an angel holding a BOM) Harrison Burgess (saw the plates according to his own account)

It seems like the student really had time on his/her hands. Geez.

Why is it a problem that people may be open to other possibilities that you personally do not wish to consider or agree. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking differently on this topic or any other for that matter. I don't find your position disappointing at all, btw.

Actually, in 1955 David O. McKay defined Melanesians, Negritos, Fijians and other groups being from a different linage and not under the priesthood ban, it is then (3 years later, 1958) that Melanesians were given the Priesthood and blacks in the Philippines earlier (along with others groups).

Faith in the prophets? I like to think of Faith in terms of Heavenly Father and hope that His Spirit guides the decisions and policies of our leaders. However, I don't believe it makes them immune from committing mistakes or using their own rationalization, bigotry or even prejudice in a particular issue.

That's not true. Joseph Smith never had an issue with Elijah and his priesthood.

Well, the whole issue of faith on a man is a completely different topic. However, I understand what you are saying. I do not have really an opinion (yet) on whether or not it was a "mistake" because I believe that if the ban was not a revelation from God, then President Young did it as a direct consequence of William McCary's actions and that's kind of sinister to imagine (in a way). Again like I said, I continue studying and researching. However, even though I feel quite passionate about the topic (as MANY others) it is not something that makes me lose any sleep at night, I have enough stress in my life (long story) that causes me to lose sleep, however I love Church history and a good debate. :)

I am making a direct separation between policy and revelation. I don't think you need the Holy Spirit in the policy that states we shouldn't have lights on Christmas trees in the chapel because it may cause a fire. That's common sense. Again, policies are one thing, revelation is another. I consider this issue (ban on the Priesthood) a policy or a practice (unless someone can kindly direct me to the revelation and consequent vote in general conference on this issue). I will be glad to change my position.

I don't think is a matter of being offended. It's very easy to mention that this happened so many years ago, that it was probably "policy", etc (we are indirectly trying to brush it off), the only thing we are lacking is saying we should forget about it and move on (no wonder the Jews get so upset when people try that same reasoning with regards to the Holocaust). However, for me (and I am aware it's probably just ME) I try to imagine what these Saints went through, I studied their lives, I studied the context of the whole issue and I have lots of questions. As an "eternal" student that I consider myself to be, I continue seeking for answers (this is just one of those topics).

For those interested in knowing more, here is a link of Margaret Young and Darius Gray on the topic. They share a lot of information giving a historical perspective and also share questions (like I have and probably many others who studied this topic in depth). Very interesting: Blacks and the LDS Priesthood When I started reading about Elijah Abel many, many years ago my heart was touched by the willingness of this Saint to do what was right. He was a humble man who helped Joseph Smith in many occasions and even received his washing and anointing, how sad must have been the day when he had to request to go to the temple to receive his own endowment and was denied that right twice, despite the fact that he was a worthy Priesthood holder, a Seventy and had served at that point of time, two missions.

Why? If we are talking about policies, what is the issue?

What notion is that? I'm kind of confused as what is the issue you guys are talking about.

Interesting. Where did you serve? (if you don't mind the question).

We? Do you play for the Lakers? I am just teasing you! I do the same thing while talking about my favorite teams.

Yes Bini, I asked and I appreciate your response. :) My question was probably more out of amazement than seeking an answer (kind of rhetorical). And by the way, you do not sound "serious".

Hi Bini. We are talking about legalization here, not doctrine. We could debate all day long whether or not polygamy still doctrinal in the Church (even though it is not practiced). However, in a legal perspective I believe these people have the right to live as they wish as long as they are happy, no minors involved and both parts are in agreement (separation of Church and State? Yep, for me).

I really don't know why some people (even in our Church) seem to be so bothered about polygamists and polygamy in general. As long as they are happy, then great!

I am very aware that many leaders (past and modern) talked about a revelation however where is the substantiation of it? I think that's my main point.

Taking into consideration that some black members of the Church were giving the Priesthood (in at least one case by Joseph Smith himself), if Brigham Young indeed received that revelation of banning them from the Priesthood, where is it recorded and how come the revelation was not put to vote in general conference? (common consent).

Actually, he is referring to the Church leaders trying to give a reason for the ban, not to the Saints as a congregated body or maybe I missed something?

I don't think it's a matter of worrying but a matter of awareness. We do not stop talking about the Holocaust because there is nothing we can do to change it (I know the example seems extreme) but the point I am trying to illustrate is awareness and information helps us to understand some of these things. In my opinion, this issue illustrates perfectly the fact that prophets may teach things that may not be according to the Spirit or doctrinal and that's why it is so important for us to get a confirmation of whatever doctrine or teaching we may receive.

Even though we cannot change history, I think what we can do is not perpetuate the "folcklore/myths" surrounding the topic that Pres. Holland spoke about even when it's coming from our past Prophets.

I think it's easy for us to ask what blessings the early black members of the Church really lost or try to rationalize that they did not lose any (which is not true), however if you was Black and you were living at that time or even at the present time, the issue is very delicate and a very hard bone to chew.

I think it's a bit ludicrous to try to explain/justify what Brigham Young stated and whether or not he said it and whether or not he was just sharing his "opinion". Point blank is that he said it. That's a fact and that's part of the "freckles" in Church history Pres. Hinckley referred to (and we have many). I discussed this issue ad nauseam with many members of the Church and with Darius Gray who sent me some copies of the DVD's he was producing with Margaret. I think they did a terrific job in trying to put things into perspective and a must see for those interested in the topic. I think Elder Holland gives some interesting points in the PBS interview:

I think Nathan's point is that even though we do understand and agree that the thoughts of President Young at that time were common in a historical perspective, when his thoughts and teachings affected others (such as the Black and the Priesthood) issue as he mentioned, then it is not longer about his personal opinion and understanding historical context. I think that's his main point. Maybe he can correct me if I am wrong.