Issues with Brigham Young

[Suzie]

Then I read this thread. Major. Disappointment.

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.

[Guest]

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.

I'll point out ONE glaring one that I have pointed out 5 million times already it seems. That faithful LDS can believe that Priesthood Authority was withheld for a century because of the prophets' personal bigotry. Sad.

[Suzie]

I'll point out ONE glaring one that I have pointed out 5 million times already it seems. That faithful LDS can believe that Priesthood Authority was withheld for a century because of the prophets' personal bigotry. Sad.

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

[Guest]

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

Nobody can claim it as fact because NOBODY knows the facts. That faithful LDS think it a possiblity is what I found sad.

Look at this statement:

What I think is that Brigham Young is at fault for many of the Anti-Mormons that are out there because he put the church through a period of corruptness which hadn't been brought back into balance until years later when polygamy was ended and then until we had not used race as a reason to deny someone the same blessings.

Echoed by a few more after Nathan. Sad.

Edited January 18, 2011 by anatess

[Suzie]

That faithful LDS think it a possiblity is what I found sad.

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

[Guest]

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

Yes we are. I don't know if you're a convert to the church or was born in the church. I'm a Catholic convert. The authority of the pope was one of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. It would be pretty hypocritical of me to leave the Pope to follow a Prophet who can lead a church through personal bigotry. That's why it is striking a strong discordant chord in me.

[Suzie]

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.

[Suzie]

Yes we are. I don't know if you're a convert to the church or was born in the church. I'm a Catholic convert. The authority of the pope was one of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. It would be pretty hypocritical of me to leave the Pope to follow a Prophet who can lead a church through personal bigotry. That's why it is striking a strong discordant chord in me.

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.

[Guest]

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.

We agree! Yeay!

So, in the same token, if it was a possibility that Priesthood Authority was withheld through a prophet's personal bigotry, then people - especially prophets and apostles for a century - would not have received confirmation on it and the church would not sustain the prophet. Whatever reason the ban was put in place is there because the Holy Ghost confirmed it throughout an entire century. Either that, or the church is not true.

[Guest]

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.

We agree again! Yeay!

[pam]

Whewwww I'm glad that's settled. I thought I was going to have to stand in between you two. :)

[Wingnut]

So, in the same token, if it was a possibility that Priesthood Authority was withheld through a prophet's personal bigotry, then people - especially prophets and apostles for a century - would not have received confirmation on it and the church would not sustain the prophet. Whatever reason the ban was put in place is there because the Holy Ghost confirmed it throughout an entire century. Either that, or the church is not true.

There's a third possibility: that the ban was also upheld for over a century due to personal bigotry. Or due to people choosing not to question Brigham Young's judgment or entertain the idea that it could have been a biased decision.

Fact is, the brethren did try to overturn it earlier. Decades earlier. (See here and here.)

[Suzie]

We agree! Yeay!

So, in the same token, if it was a possibility that Priesthood Authority was withheld through a prophet's personal bigotry, then people - especially prophets and apostles for a century - would not have received confirmation on it and the church would not sustain the prophet. Whatever reason the ban was put in place is there because the Holy Ghost confirmed it throughout an entire century. Either that, or the church is not true.

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?

[Suzie]

Whewwww I'm glad that's settled. I thought I was going to have to stand in between you two. :)

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

[MarginOfError]

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

If she's a man, then she has the biggest ovaries I've ever seen on a man.

[Guest]

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?

THIS makes sense. And it's what I've been saying all along. WE DON'T KNOW the reason for the ban... but we DO KNOW (or at least I do) THAT IT WAS OF THE SPIRIT.

Remember what I said in my very first post on this thread. People tell me the Spirit that guided me in becoming Catholic was the evil Spirit or whatever. It was not. I testify it was not. But, you and I agree that the Catholic Church do not have authority. So that, I have a testimony that the Holy Spirit can guide me (or you, or the prophet, or the church) through a path that seem wrong, but it is what the Spirit knows is good for the church - just like it was what was good for me. If it wasn't good for me, then the Spirit would have not led me to remain a devout Catholic for that long. I know the reason why the Spirit guided me through the Catholic Church before impressing on me the truth of the restored gospel. Of course. It's part of my testimony. I don't know the reason why the Spirit guided the church through the priesthood ban for a century. That's the only difference.

But it is of absolute certainty to me that the Holy Spirit had a hand in the ban - personal bigotry do not hold power over an entire church.

Edited January 18, 2011 by anatess

[Suzie]

THIS makes sense. And it's what I've been saying all along. WE DON'T KNOW the reason for the ban... but we DO KNOW (or at least I do) THAT IT WAS OF THE SPIRIT.

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

[LDSChristian]

I can see a positive thing out of personal bigotry not allowing blacks to become members or receive the priesthood. Bigotry is wrong but just read what I have to say. When Brigham Young was the prophet there was still racism and some slavery going on at that time throughout the country. It was still illegal for blacks to attend church in some parts of the country. Some would be beaten or even killed for it. By them not being allowed to be members of the church that would save some black people then from being beaten or killed. Perhaps it was God's way of protecting black people from being hurt more. If blacks held the priesthood perhaps whites would have seen blacks as a great threat because of holding authority from God and result in whites killing blacks out of fear. It's just a theory.

[Guest]

I can see a positive thing out of personal bigotry not allowing blacks to become members or receive the priesthood. Bigotry is wrong but just read what I have to say. When Brigham Young was the prophet there was still racism and some slavery going on at that time throughout the country. It was still illegal for blacks to attend church in some parts of the country. Some would be beaten or even killed for it. By them not being allowed to be members of the church that would save some black people then from being beaten or killed. Perhaps it was God's way of protecting black people from being hurt more. If blacks held the priesthood perhaps whites would have seen blacks as a great threat because of holding authority from God and result in whites killing blacks out of fear. It's just a theory.

LDSChristian, blacks were never banned from church membership. As a matter of fact, the LDS church was one of the few where blacks and whites sit on the same pew in church.

[LDSChristian]

LDSChristian, blacks were never banned from church membership. As a matter of fact, the LDS church was one of the few where blacks and whites sit on the same pew in church.

Why is it every time I say something you feel the need to make some kind of remark about it?

Edited January 18, 2011 by LDSChristian

[LDSChristian]

As I was saying...

I can see a positive thing out of personal bigotry not allowing blacks to become members or receive the priesthood. Bigotry is wrong but just read what I have to say. When Brigham Young was the prophet there was still racism and some slavery going on at that time throughout the country. It was still illegal for blacks to attend church in some parts of the country. Some would be beaten or even killed for it. By them not being allowed to be members of the church that would save some black people then from being beaten or killed. Perhaps it was God's way of protecting black people from being hurt more. If blacks held the priesthood perhaps whites would have seen blacks as a great threat because of holding authority from God and result in whites killing blacks out of fear. It's just a theory.

[NeuroTypical]

Their testimony is not yours. Everyone is to get their own testimony on what they say. Church leaders used to teach for everyone to get their own testimony.

...

We were never commanded by GOD to blindly follow prophets.

False dichotomy. D&C 46:14: "To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful."

Apparently, continuing faithful and exercising the Gift of believing the testimony of others, you can have eternal life.

[Wingnut]

Why is it every time I say something you feel the need to make some kind of remark about it?

Uh, because it's a discussion and that's what people do?

As I was saying...

Yeah. We read it the first time. I'm not sure why you posted the exact same thing twice.

[slamjet]

Yeah. We read it the first time. I'm not sure why you posted the exact same thing twice.

Stutter?

[MarginOfError]

Why is it every time I say something you feel the need to make some kind of remark about it?

Sorry, you can't present a theory and then complain when the counterexample that disproves it is given. There's nothing wrong with creating the best and most accurate body of knowledge possible.

Regarding your theory--if blacks were denied the priesthood to offer any sort of protection, I highly doubt it was for their own as much as it was for the Church's image and reputation. The Church gathered saints from around the world in spite of mass persecutions and only left when open war was declared on them. The early church wasn't above putting it's members in harm's way for what they believed to be right.