Panel Discussion on 1978 Revelation


KeithLBrown
 Share

Recommended Posts

Presidents Joseph F Smith and David O. McKay both had research done to determine where the notion of a curse came from. They both concluded it was not via revelation. Pres McKay determined that it was primarily Brigham Young's interpretation of scripture, based upon his Protestant background on the subject.

As it was, he changed the policy in his day, so it only affected African born blacks, and no longer polynesian/Indonesian blacks. So, the change toward all receiving the priesthood actually began in the 1950s. He asked the Lord to lift the ban also, but the Lord told him it wasn't yet time. This according to Prince's biography on David O. McKay, based upon his grandmother's journals (she was Pres McKay's personal secretary).

The evidence is that there was no revelation establishing the ban, particularly on a curse of Cain. And the Lord has confirmed that to me. That is also FAIR's position. We do not know the exact reason for the ban, we just know that it wasn't concerning the curse of Cain, and we know it was lifted via revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you do not believe the 1978 revelation was not a revelation but rather a choice for the Church to be more politically correct?

I do...

We all have to find our own answers. That's where prayer and personal revelation come in.

and with love and respect I say "Either way you choose to follow the prophet or you don't." I saw sad consequences for those who didn't believe back in 1978, and these consequenses didn't have anything to do with Church leadership but with their own hearts.

applepansy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presidents Joseph F Smith and David O. McKay both had research done to determine where the notion of a curse came from. They both concluded it was not via revelation. Pres McKay determined that it was primarily Brigham Young's interpretation of scripture, based upon his Protestant background on the subject.

As it was, he changed the policy in his day, so it only affected African born blacks, and no longer polynesian/Indonesian blacks. So, the change toward all receiving the priesthood actually began in the 1950s. He asked the Lord to lift the ban also, but the Lord told him it wasn't yet time. This according to Prince's biography on David O. McKay, based upon his grandmother's journals (she was Pres McKay's personal secretary).

The evidence is that there was no revelation establishing the ban, particularly on a curse of Cain. And the Lord has confirmed that to me. That is also FAIR's position. We do not know the exact reason for the ban, we just know that it wasn't concerning the curse of Cain, and we know it was lifted via revelation.

Thanks for sharing your sacred revelation. Yes, I can see where your opinion has changed. However, I am still not convinced here, the entirety of why, not because he never received revelation in continuing the cursing, but I had received something that was precious years ago that had transpired in the pre-mortal world and was shown why. I wanted to know why certain lineage were banned, since my own beliefs that all worthy men should be allowed to receive the priesthood.

Ram, since President McKay statement is second-hand accounting I would love to see the other reference from President Smith. Also, if it was the case of no revelation was received, [i do believe also it was not receive by revelation at the restoration of the church but a correction to a previous cursing], both men would of expressed it in their writings or talks. Getting back to the previous cursing given to Cain, Ham and his grandson, this is where I can see President Young and the Prophet Joseph stopped baptizing. Was the cursing removed prior to restoration of the gospel? Any references stating it was?

Also, it was not due to the skin color since my friend was white as snow and was denied the priesthood through his father side. It was after this revelation of President Kimball he did receive the priesthood. :D

Now, living in this day, I am so glad that all men and eventually in the Celestial Kingdom, even women [priest and priestesses] will be able to hold it and share with the FATHER in the same honor as HIM.

Keith thanks for posting this. At times, I wish we could go back and correct our ancestors and their mistakes they had cause their future progeny.

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith,

I would ask How can we fellowship other members who are different that us? Not just black, but everyone who is different. And not just how can caucasion members fellowship but how can black, asian, hispanic etc. help fellowship? Cultural differences have brought a new dynamic to the church and these differences are growing. There are many who treat others as Christ would regardless and are excited to learn about their cultures. We are afterall all converts, even those who were born into the church must be converted.

I live in a wonderful ward, where we all try to learn the cultural differences of others and how they fit into the culture of the church. Maybe there is a question in that to ask?

Another one, "How do we honor our baptismal convenants when we don't agree with a revelation?" The answer is act as if you do and the Lord will show you. We often have to do before we see the why.

applepansy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we as members lessen many of the stereotypes that many have to welcome and support these brothers and sisters in the gospel? Yes even members stereotype.

We correct them on the spot. I don't have a problem with that one.

When I was called as a councilor to the Bishopric in my twenties, the called Bishop asked if I had a problem with serving with a black councilor. I was immediately offended even asking that question. I had to correct the Bishop for asking such a question. We served together as one voice during that time. Later, my friend become a bishop in another ward when he left the Navy. Another great member of the kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith,

One thing is that many members still, even 30 years after the revelation, do not understand nor seek to understand those from other cultures.

When we began baptizing blacks from the poor neighborhoods, it was a culture shock for both old member and convert. I remember being in PEC and having members of the council asking why these new people couldn't just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Why did we have to give them rides to church, etc?

They didn't understand that the issue of self-reliance, which is strongly taught in our church, has not ever been taught to many people in a welfare state society. It isn't just the concept of receiving a 45 minute lesson on it from the missionaries or home teachers, then suddenly cutting them loose to do all of it perfectly. It takes training, developing new habits, leaving behind old habits and customs, and learning to embrace and live new concepts.

The Church in Montgomery is extremely different today than it was 25 years ago. There are units that are highly integrated, but it took years (decades) of work to accomplish it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith:

As for what I would be interested in hearing about if I were in the audience:

1.) History of the exclusion. I've read most of the stuff at the Black LDS website and some other things, and I'm personally not convinced that there was ever an all-out ban to begin with. Whatever the real reason for blacks not receiving the priesthood, I haven't learned of anything that points to an explicit ban. So maybe just look into the events that led up to blacks not being ordained (the Black LDS site has an awesome timeline).

2.) Explore the criticisms that go along with this subject. I debated the topic of blacks and the priesthood in another online group, and just as I suspected it took about 4 posts for someone to dig up some extremely out of context quotes from early leaders that, the way they were presented, made them look extremely racist. I feel that if you are going to be educating members on the subject, it would make sense to look at (and refute) the so-called "evidence" that the withholding of the priesthood was because of rabid racism from Brigham Young.

3.) What was going on in the world at the time this "ban" took effect and was in effect? It's easy for us, in 2008, to look at things like slavery for example and say that it is horrible and inhumane. But in the 1800's it was commonplace. Heck, Joseph Smith had to come out and tell people that black people have souls and are human just like the rest of us! So maybe illustrate what things were like at the time for blacks and whites and the fact that people coming into the church had those ideas that they were raised with.

4.) Above all, I personally would not be looking for a judgment call. I would probably stay away from working towards some moralistic idea that the "ban" was right or wrong. The fact that Christ allowed it to go on should definitely be mentioned, but I don't know that it's our place to say whether it was right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you do not believe the 1978 revelation was not a revelation but rather a choice for the Church to be more politically correct?

I do...

What if you were standing on the banks of a river and couldn't swim. On your side of the river is extreme desert, and no food. On the other side is lush vegetation and forest, with plenty of food available. There's a bridge there you could use to walk across to the other side, but you refuse to use it because you have $100 and the toll to cross is $10. Instead, you choose to sit on the desert side of the river and sulk, crying out loudly to anyone who will stop and listen about how it's not fair that you should have to pay anything to cross to the desirable side of the river. Pretty soon you convince yourself that it is not desirable to cross the river, that there must be maneating bears over there, even though you have never seen them, because very few people who go over to the lush side of the river ever come back across to live in the desert. You are convinced that the good life is just not worth the small amount that it would cost to experience it. You've become comfortable with your misery, and you want everyone to know that you would cross if only the admission was free. But that $10 is just too important to you to give it up and cross.

All persons in the preceding story are fictional, and any resemblence to real people, living or dead, is coincidental. No animals were harmed in the making of this story, unless you want to count the chicken who gave its life so I could eat during the writing portion of it.

Sorry for hijacking your thread, Keith, it was an accident. Now, :backtotopic:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've asked my sister (who served in South Africa in 2001) about this issue and her reply was that members in the U.S. seem to spend a LOT more time worrying or arguing about this than anybody that she ever met on her mission. I'm not going to pretend like I know any specifics and I do know that different areas in Africa have different histories and attitudes, but if you'd like to ask her anything personally, I'd be happy to pass your contact info on to her or vice versa. I do know that she's

recommended the book Setting the Record Straight: Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood to some friends of hers. It might be something that barely scratches the surface on this issue (I haven't read it myself), but I wish you luck with your efforts in your preparation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share