Questioning the prophet

[MormonMama]

Moksha is right, he is just forgoing the normal politically correct song-and-dance that most LDS are used to when we talk about this aspect of Church history. (and, as you can see, so am I)

There is no question at all as to the views of brethren like Harold B. Lee and Mark E. Peterson (for example) regarding questions such as marriage between the races. If you have not come across these quotes, then I am not surprised, yet they do exist, and from reliable sources, at that. From the vantagepoint of the 21st century, there is no other more appropriate word to describe their comments, except 'racist'. Perhaps "culturally biased racism" would sound better?

There is not a single revelation to a modern prophet of the Church forbidding the conveyance of the priesthood to a 'decendant of Canaan'. Apparently, it was a policy of the Church that was embraced sometime after the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., partially ameliorated by President McKay, and only eliminated after the passing of President Lee and Elder Peterson.

Blacks in the Scriptures - Black / Negro Mormon LDS history & Doctrine

Racist statements by Church leaders - FAIRMormon

This is one (and only one) reason why studying Church history can be a problem for some people. If you cannot see the wart that truly sits on your chin, it's not a problem with your eye, it is a problem with your mind. They say the truth hurts. So true.

This is also a good reason to draw a distinction between scripture and comments made from the pulpit, even the General Conference pulpit. It is not just a matter of semantics, but is deeply meaningful.

HiJolly

Sorry, but I cannot believe for one second that the only reason Blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood was because of racism amongst the leaders of the church. If that is the case, then either the Lord is also racist or church leaders for several generations were not true prophets of the Lord, and I cannot buy into either of those theories.

Church leaders are human, and as such they have human foibles which can include racist feelings. But if they are truly leading the church based on such feelings and not under the direction of the Lord, then they are not true prophets in which case this church has been led falsely for generations, and the Lord allowed it.

And I just can't swallow that. If I could, I would have to leave the church.

[Moksha]

If you believe it is racism, then you can't possibly believe the Lord directs this church.

Wish that wonderful podcast by John Dehlin, Darius Gray and Margaret Young was still available on the internet. I used to refer people to this so they could learn for themselves about the comedy of errors that lead to both the Priesthood ban and the Racial Purity test.

Hopefully this excerpt will suffice to give you a hint as to how this mistake was propagated.

History and Elijah Abel

(Many of the following historical facts were taken from John Dehlin’s interview with Darius Gray and Margaret Young.) If we go back the time of Joseph Smith, we are immediately met with our first series of incongruities. During the prophet’s lifetime, the church invited all free people of color to join and participate in their community. Among those who joined the church in that period were a small number of African-American men who were baptized and ordained to the priesthood. The most well known of these is a man by the name of Elijah Abel, who was baptized in 1832, ordained an Elder on March 3, 1836 (according to one source by Joseph Smith Jr. himself), and in December of that same year was ordained to the office of the Seventy. Brother Abel served the church faithfully throughout his life. He served three missions and helped to build temples in Kirtland, Nauvoo, and Salt Lake City. He received the temple ordinance of the washing and anointing while at Kirtland.

Church leaders were aware of Abel’s race; however, it was not seen as a problem with regard to the priesthood until the Utah period. In 1853, his request for the endowment was denied by Brigham Young. Then in 1879, the first conflict with Abel actually holding the priesthood arose when Zebedee Coltrin claimed that in 1834 Joseph Smith Jr. had received a revelation that blacks could not receive the priesthood and that when Joseph learned of Abel’s race, he had been dropped from the office of Seventy. Coltrin’s claims were challenged at that time by then-apostle Joseph F. Smith who produced ordination certificates verifying Abel’s continued status as a priesthood holder. His claims are also rebuffed by the fact that Coltrin himself had ordained Abel to the office of Seventy — two years after he claimed that Joseph had received the revelation restricting the priesthood. Elijah Abel was again denied in his request for the endowment in 1880 by the Quorum of the Twelve. However, in 1883 Brother Abel was still on record as a Seventy and in 1884 served his third and final mission for the church. He died in December of that same year. In 1895, eleven years after Abel’s death, he was again discussed by the Quorum of the Twelve and Joseph F. Smith again refuted claims that he had ever been dropped from the Seventy. Twelve years later in 1908, for reasons that appear nowhere in written history, Joseph F. Smith reversed his position and claimed that Joseph Smith himself had voided Abel’s ordination.

Elijah Abel’s history reveals a number of inconsistencies: from the conflict between Brother Coltrin’s actions in 1836 and his claims in 1879, to Joseph F. Smith’s change of position in 1908, to Abel receiving temple ordinances in Kirtland but not in Salt Lake. One thing that his history clearly establishes is that throughout this early period of the church any established policy regarding priesthood restriction was unclear even among church leadership.

There are a number of other important developments that take place over this same period of time. In 1844, Joseph Smith was running for President of the United States on an anti-slavery platform which sought to end slavery in the U.S. by 1850. In 1845, Orson Hyde was the first in the church to speculate on record that blacks were a “cursed lineage” because of actions in the pre-existence. However, two years after Hyde’s statement, Brigham Young stated, “It’s nothing to do with the blood for one blood has God made all flesh” and then added, referring to Walker Lewis (another African-American who held the priesthood in the early period of the church), that “we have one of the best Elders, an African in Lowell [Massachusetts].” This statement lies in stark contrast to a number of statements made by Brigham Young later in his life. Finlay, in 1852, slavery was given legal recognition in the Territory of Deseret. This appears as somewhat of mixed bag of historical facts, but shows that within the church, just as in society as a whole, there were various different opinions on the subject of race relations. June 8, 1978: Revelation on the Priesthood: 30 Years Later Thinking in a Marrow Bone

Okay, here is the meat of my point:

• God is not a racist and should not be blamed as the author of human racism.
• Zebedee Coltrin introduced the idea that Elijah Abel had not been okayed for the Priesthood, but was rebutted with evidence to the contrary.
• Although Joseph F. Smith rebutted Coltrin, for some inexplicable reason, he changed his mind in 1908.
• It ill behooves our Church to have any vestiges of this racism.

If you want an example of the Lord directing this Church, try instead the message of President Hinckley, who said that racism has no place in our Church and that one cannot be a racist and a disciple of Christ.

[MormonMama]

I truly don't understand how you can say such things.

Do you truly believe the Lord would allow our prophets to lead us astray or teach us false teachings? If the ban on Blacks in the priesthood was based solely on the racism of church leaders and not through the direction of the Lord, then it was a false doctrine. I do not believe the Lord would allow false doctrine to exist in his church, especially for such a length of time, nor do I believe he would have allowed church leaders to prevent worthy men from holding the priesthood if he did not agree with it, therefore I believe Christ must have agreed with this ban. I do not believe he did so for racist purposes, and I honestly am not bothered by what his reasons are. I expect I will understand them on the other side.

This is just a guess, but I'm guessing you've not spent a lot of time rubbing shoulders with a living prophet.

And you have?

I guess that's not your fault, yet I would warn you against making a prophet something he is not. Prophets are people, with faults, mistakes, biases and errors -- even when they are at the pulpit.

Now I realize you are completely misunderstanding me.

Hopefully this excerpt will suffice to give you a hint as to how this mistake was propagated.

I'm seeing a lot of "he said/he said" in that article. Do you have a link to actual documents, rather than 3rd and 4th party hand-me-down statements? A genuine and honest question here, I'd really like to see them if they exist.

God is not a racist and should not be blamed as the author of human racism.

Um, yeah. That's pretty much what I've said.

If you want an example of the Lord directing this Church, try instead the message of President Hinckley, who said that racism has no place in our Church and that one cannot be a racist and a disciple of Christ.

And again, you've just supported my position.

I do not believe the ban on Blacks holding the priesthood was a "mistake" based on the racist feelings of church leaders. I believe it was divinely directed, but not for reasons most people would assume (racism). Even if it was not divinely appointed, the Lord obviously did not jump in and immediately issue a correction, it was allowed to continue for quite a long time. So for whatever purpose, a "teaching moment" for us all, or some other reason, the Lord allowed the ban to exist for a lengthy period of time, and I do not believe it was because he is racist because he is not.

[Moksha]

Even if it was not divinely appointed, the Lord obviously did not jump in and immediately issue a correction, it was allowed to continue for quite a long time. So for whatever purpose, a "teaching moment" for us all, or some other reason, the Lord allowed the ban to exist for a lengthy period of time, and I do not believe it was because he is racist because he is not.

This would mean that Mormons within that time frame were somehow not prepared to hear the truth. I suppose if the 1978 announcement had been given in 1948, that it would have put Mormons out of step with the majority of White America, but would it not have raised us to a more admirable moral position?

[Moksha]

I'm seeing a lot of "he said/he said" in that article. Do you have a link to actual documents, rather than 3rd and 4th party hand-me-down statements? A genuine and honest question here, I'd really like to see them if they exist.

"Look! Up in the skys...

Is it a bird? Is it a plane?"

This is a job for Elphaba.

[Hemidakota]

It is a matter of personal prayer for the appropriate answer vice the world; as to any questioning of any doctrine that is not clear to self. Remember what Nephi did when he did not understand the Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life. Even I didn't have clarity on this and asked the same.

[hordak]

This tread has now come full circle. It started with a offensive idea given by a Prophet at general conference on less valiant people becoming handicap. The majority of people believe he was speaking as a man,that not everything including this statement is inspired by God.

Then we have a policy (with many associated offensive quotes) given by the Prophet and the majority believe it must have come from God because it is his church and his chosen leaders.

(though i don't know if it's the same members)

This is where i get confused.Which one is it?

If the Priesthood ban must be from God because it is his church leaders giving it wouldn't that mean the less valiant handicap connection came from him since it was stated by his church leader at his official church conference?

By the same token if the Prophets human wisdom could influence his personal beliefs in an address at general conference couldn't the Priesthood ban have influenced in the same way?

[Hemidakota]

Confusion on what was given vice our own perception of one paragraph for an answer. Partly placing a tidbit information on what Elder Lee stated and then reading the whole October 1966, was taken in a wrong content. Again, as answered, go back to the NT, when the Savior heals people who were afflicted by sin and became handicap; then those who were born into this world as handicap. Take a closer look on what transpired when He healed the sinner versus healing the valiant one who sent to glorify GOD. I don't see why this is hard to grasp.

The confusing portion on my behalf in this thread, was my train of thought of those who were called FENCE SITTERS [old terminology] or today's term, less valiant ones [spirits] prior to mortal life. To understand this, it does require guidance from the Holy ghost and instructions from across the veil on what transpired before this life. This is where I will have to step in and go against a few GAs claiming nonsense when that was not the case. yes! It may sound harsh but truth is truth and not to be censored or water down for the public. Everybody in this life has agency to choose for themselves on their own conduct and given opportunity of learning to do the right. Nor does it mean they suppose to know everything or I know everything. It was matter of applying prayer to a age old question of what I had read from a book years ago and ask for myself, whether this was the case. Now to be blunt, I had tried to blog this topic when it came up months ago on what I had received but to my great astonishment, it disappeared. For me, this is say - NO. It answered the reasoning behind why some were given harsher mortal life than others. This is why I will keep repeating to all, pray for that answer vice to listening to other reasoning.

One thing that bothers me is when those choose to use the racist card, to faulting early church leaders when that was not the case. Even Joseph Smith was baptizing and giving the priesthood to them. However, it did stop when two important translation works came along. Being prophet, he learned quickly and acted on it. I can clearly see his life was always in a learning curve to perfecting himself before the Savior until death. And yes! Even the prophet drank beer on occasion but learned his mistake when Emma complained about the mess and smoke filled haze from the early leaders in the upper room classroom; thus we have the Word of Wisdom.

Confusing? I think it has been answered more than once.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Hemidakota

[HiJolly]

This tread has now come full circle. It started with a offensive idea given by a Prophet at general conference on less valiant people becoming handicap. The majority of people believe he was speaking as a man,that not everything including this statement is inspired by God.

Then we have a policy (with many associated offensive quotes) given by the Prophet and the majority believe it must have come from God because it is his church and his chosen leaders.

(though i don't know if it's the same members)

This is where i get confused.Which one is it?

If the Priesthood ban must be from God because it is his church leaders giving it wouldn't that mean the less valiant handicap connection came from him since it was stated by his church leader at his official church conference?

By the same token if the Prophets human wisdom could influence his personal beliefs in an address at general conference couldn't the Priesthood ban have influenced in the same way?

Hey Hordak,

Be careful.

HiJolly

Edited December 3, 2008 by HiJolly
Didn't want to be too harsh. maybe I'm too late.

[TeancumsSword]

Sorry, but I cannot believe for one second that the only reason Blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood was because of racism amongst the leaders of the church. If that is the case, then either the Lord is also racist or church leaders for several generations were not true prophets of the Lord, and I cannot buy into either of those theories.

Church leaders are human, and as such they have human foibles which can include racist feelings. But if they are truly leading the church based on such feelings and not under the direction of the Lord, then they are not true prophets in which case this church has been led falsely for generations, and the Lord allowed it.

And I just can't swallow that. If I could, I would have to leave the church.

Riddle me this Batwoman...

If Brigham was right most early leaders of the church couldn't have held the priesthood and many Native Americans either. Why you ask...

Joseph who was sold into Egypt married a descendant of Ham by the name of Potiphera (meaning from the land of Put. Put was a son of Cain). Those hailing from the British Isles and Celtic lands are Ephraim, Native Americans are Manasseh, they were the sons of Joseph and his black wife Potiphera, and according to Brigham, a single drop of Negro blood disqualifies a man from the priesthood. So if Brigham was right very few men hold the priesthood and the church is out of order, and if Brigham was wrong then, in your own words, he was a false prophet and the church was led astray for years, and where does that leave the church today?...

Quite a quandry to be in.

[Hemidakota]

Not a quandry...based our culture learning, from what side [gender] of the family is the priesthood given too? What is our decendants based on - the man or the woman in the church?

Right?

[HiJolly]

OK, I'm bowing out of this thread. I started to reply to MM and saw no good to it, so that's it. See y'all on other threads.

HiJolly

[TeancumsSword]

Not a quandry...based our culture learning, from what side [gender] of the family is the priesthood given too? What is our decendants based on - the man or the woman in the church?

Right?

Seriously?

Are you trying to tell me Brigham meant male negro blood, not female?

[Hemidakota]

Again, when you receive a PB, from what gender is your family tree given?

[TeancumsSword]

Again, when you receive a PB, from what gender is your family tree given?

Wow, this is apologetics at it's ultimate. I'll indulge...

Male

[Hemidakota]

I don’t believe to be an apologetic or subscribe to that view. Now try though…

If gender [mother side] is a selection of being denied the priesthood and Joseph was born of Jacob, what does that have to do with both of his son? Again, my friend who was 'white' as me, but his father side was of a Canaan decent, he was denied the priesthood until 1978. It wasn't due to his mother side. Same goes for the two sons of Joseph, they were not denied the priesthood based on their mother's bloodline. Even my wife has Lamanite blood in her lines but this didn't stop my sons receiving the priesthood.

Now induldge me. I don't see where you are going on this path....

[Heavenguard]

I think TeancumsSword's point is that a person is 50% their father, and 50% their mother.

Hemi, you speak of an inheritance that has cultural standards, but that is not something that this generation readily accepts, because of women's and racial equality movements, and the increase of our understandings in biology.

And to this point:

Do you truly believe the Lord would allow our prophets to lead us astray or teach us false teachings? ... I do not believe the Lord would allow false doctrine to exist in his church, especially for such a length of time ...

I have to say...

If you believe in the Restoration of the Church as brought by Joseph Smith, then you believe in the Apostasy, in which case you believe that the Lord did allow false doctrine to exist in his church for nearly 2000 years. (That's about ten times the amount of time that the LDS church as been Restored!)

If you believe that Joseph Smith restored the church, you must also accept these possibilities. I'm not saying that's necessarily how it transpired, but you can't write off the possibility either.

[TeancumsSword]

I don’t believe to be an apologetic or subscribe to that view. Now try though…

If gender [mother side] is a selection of being denied the priesthood and Joseph was born of Jacob, what does that have to do with both of his son? Again, my friend who was 'white' as me, but his father side was of a Canaan decent, he was denied the priesthood until 1978. It wasn't due to his mother side. Same goes for the two sons of Joseph, they were not denied the priesthood based on their mother's bloodline. Even my wife has Lamanite blood in her lines but this didn't stop my sons receiving the priesthood.

Now induldge me. I don't see where you are going on this path....

What path? I clearly stated my case. Ephraim and Manasseh and their descendants could not have held the priesthood under Brigham's standards, which would have disqualified most of the leading men of the early church. He was wrong and the best thing the LDS church could do would be to issue any apology and clearly state the priesthood ban was from mans reasoning.

[bytor2112]

What if there all right.....President Hinkley, President Lee, President Young, Elder Petersen? Does it really matter....now? The blessings of the Priesthood are available to all men today. Am I wrong in thinking that the Lord has seemed to favor one people over another for some reason or another?

[TeancumsSword]

What if there all right.....President Hinkley, President Lee, President Young, Elder Petersen? Does it really matter....now? The blessings of the Priesthood are available to all men today. Am I wrong in thinking that the Lord has seemed to favor one people over another for some reason or another?

If Brigham Young is right, then the church has stepped out of order by giving the priesthood to the descendants of Ham. He clearly stated they would not receive it until after the millennium and not until the remainder of Adam's posterity had the opportunity to receive it.

[bytor2112]

If Brigham Young is right, then the church has stepped out of order by giving the priesthood to the descendants of Ham. He clearly stated they would not receive it until after the millennium and not until the remainder of Adam's posterity had the opportunity to receive it.

Maybe that was his opinion.....kind of like Adam-God theory.

[TeancumsSword]

Maybe that was his opinion.....kind of like Adam-God theory.

Brigham was very specific about saying Adam-God was a revelation, and he declared his doctrine about blacks as being from God also. If he was opinionating (yes, I know it's not a word) he made it seem it was God's opinion.

[AngelLynn]

To try and put a value on being valant enough or not valant enough in the preexistance seems kind of silly. Is their a treasury on how much a person is worth in being valant? Can it be measured? Of course not. Some might be more valant than others, but that's a man made measurement. It's kind of hard to put a factor on how worthy or valant a person is. In the pre-existance all were valant to some extent, at least those who agreed to the Lord's plan and are on Earth now. It's a true test to say we are all valant because we are here. We chose to come to this Earth, go through trials, and have all sorts of problems. We rejoiced in Heaven over coming to this Earth and rejojoiced over the trials, pains, and afflictions we were going to suffer.

I want to think at times, Gee, I rejoiced over these things. I really must have been crazy.

[Islander]

The notion that a prophet is infallible is an ancient assertion of the early Roman church. The scriptures are filled with examples of instances where the prophets, as men, err and even sinned:

Jonah, Moses, Jacob, David, Solomon, Lehi, Peter, the brother of Jared. They ALL did things at one point or another that was contrary to the will of the Lord. Even the Apostles discussed issues which dealt with behavior (by Peter in this case) that showed bias, lack of transparency and that, in the opinion of the brethren should stop as to avoid creating confusion.

Prophets are also human and they DO make mistakes.

[Outshined]

If a prophet said it and it was ratified as scripture; then it can be known to be from God. Otherwise, it can be considered the opinion of a man.