Issues with Brigham Young

[Guest]

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

One cannot proclaim the Church Is True and turn around and say the Prophet Leads This Church without the Spirit.

[Guest]

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

Because you said something wrong, so I corrected it. Isn't that great?

[MarginOfError]

One cannot proclaim the Church Is True and turn around and say the Prophet Leads This Church without the Spirit.

But is saying that the prophet made a decision without the Spirit the same as saying the prophet leads the Church without the Spirit?

[Vanhin]

Did I miss something? What decision did the prophet make without the Spirit? Are we just talking about the hypothetical - that the prophet can make uninspired decisions?

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited January 18, 2011 by Vanhin

[MarginOfError]

We're talking about the claim that some of us have made that it was plausible that Young disallowed blacks to hold the priesthood based on personal bigotry.

Heck, I'm even willing to say "at least in part."

[slamjet]

We're talking about the claim that some of us have made that it was plausible that Young disallowed blacks to hold the priesthood based on personal bigotry.

Heck, I'm even willing to say "at least in part."

Maybe, possibly it could be an inspired call because of all the political unrest on the issues of blacks status in the union would have compromised a young, fragile church. We need to be careful to not put 21 century sensibilities on 19th century life.

[MarginOfError]

Maybe, possibly it could be an inspired call because of all the political unrest on the issues of blacks status in the union would have compromised a young, fragile church. We need to be careful to not put 21 century sensibilities on 19th century life.

I swear, someone here said almost that exact same thing about 13 pages ago. I wish I could remember who that was!

[SwordofLaban]

I swear, someone here said almost that exact same thing about 13 pages ago. I wish I could remember who that was!

See my previous post for similar sentiments.

Ah, what the hey I'll just quote it here:

Let us look at the context of the time in order to understand the ban.

The ban on African-Americans holding the Priesthood occurred during a time in American history where the nation was very-much so divided on the issue of race. What would you have the Lord do, allow African-Americans to be ordained and have the Church face even swifter persecution then they had already been combating?

My point in the matter is simply this:

With polygamy, claims of continual revelation, new scriptures coming forth, and a large base of members that generally follow the counsel of their leaders the Church was all but damned from mainstream American society (and may I point out it still is in some regards yet today). Now would you expect a loving Heavenly Father to needlessly cause further persecutions to come upon his people by empowering a group of people in spite of the customs and practices of the American government at the time? I do not believe the Lord would do that.

I believe, personally, that the ban is based primarily on two things:

A) The Articles of Faith (based on the fact that we are to be loyal subjects to our government and its laws; and while ordaining African Americans would not necessarily be illegal, it would even further exacerbate the fires of revolution and internal conflict in our nation).

B ) 1 Nephi 4: 13 ...It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

Simply interpreted, it was better in the long run to not ordain African-Americans at that time than it would've been to ordain them due to the tremendous repercussions felt.

Also here's another thought:

Let me be clear I am LDS and love and promote the Church with all my heart, but if someone has problems with Brigham Young (but not Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon persay) then they should check out the other Mormon-based faiths (Community of Christ, Church of Christ [Temple Lot], The Church of Jesus Christ [Monongehela], etc) that didn't follow Young's leadership after Joseph's death.

I originally had some problems swallowing what Brigham Young was saying and thought that maybe one of these other "Mormon Denominations" had it right. However, after personally investigating each my testimony of Brigham Young only grew!

[Vanhin]

We're talking about the claim that some of us have made that it was plausible that Young disallowed blacks to hold the priesthood based on personal bigotry.

Heck, I'm even willing to say "at least in part."

Gotcha. So, in such a scenario, is it also plausible in your mind that ten succeeding presidents of the Church, along with generations of apostles were not inspired enough, or had not enough courage collectively to rectify the mistake before 1978? Do you think that it was revelation that lifted the policy, or was it simply the fact that the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve of 1978 were finally able to have consensus on the matter where their predecessors had not been able to in the past?

I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just curious about your point of view.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest]

But is saying that the prophet made a decision without the Spirit the same as saying the prophet leads the Church without the Spirit?

No. It's not the same. A prophet may make a decision without the spirit (Possible but may not be probable - you don't get in that position without knowing that every decision you make regarding the church needs prayer and confirmation by the Holy Ghost) but he cannot lead the Church without the spirit. That's what is great about the structure of this church. A prophet does not work alone. He is sustained by the quorom of the 12, the 70, the stakes, the wards, and ultimately us. If Satan wins over him, the Spirit will take him down - and that to me means that he will not be sustained by the apostles or 70's or stakes or wards and ultimately us.

[MarginOfError]

Gotcha. So, in such a scenario, is it also plausible in your mind that ten succeeding presidents of the Church, along with generations of apostles were not inspired enough, or had not enough courage collectively to rectify the mistake before 1978? Do you think that it was revelation that lifted the policy, or was it simply the fact that the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve of 1978 were finally able to have consensus on the matter where their predecessors had not been able to in the past?

I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just curious about your point of view.

Regards,

Vanhin

Would you take "yes" as an answer? I'm sure it was a combination of a number of things. Consider how much difficulty John Taylor had with the idea of ending polygamy when the dissolution of the Church was within sight. Following him was an era in the church in which people almost had an idea of infallibility in the prophets. Every word from Young's mouth was understood by many to be irrefutable proof of God's will. While this was going on, the procedural order of the church became more entrenched. So by the time there were those who questioned the policy and called for its reversal, it required much more than a mere memo from the prophet.

At least that's one plausible explanation. There are myriad others. Including the plausible scenario that it was God's will. I'm not convinced of any of them. I'm only convinced to their plausibility and convinced to the fact that I can't judge the decisions of that time outside of the context of the time.

[Vanhin]

Would you take "yes" as an answer? I'm sure it was a combination of a number of things. Consider how much difficulty John Taylor had with the idea of ending polygamy when the dissolution of the Church was within sight. Following him was an era in the church in which people almost had an idea of infallibility in the prophets. Every word from Young's mouth was understood by many to be irrefutable proof of God's will. While this was going on, the procedural order of the church became more entrenched. So by the time there were those who questioned the policy and called for its reversal, it required much more than a mere memo from the prophet.

At least that's one plausible explanation. There are myriad others. Including the plausible scenario that it was God's will. I'm not convinced of any of them. I'm only convinced to their plausibility and convinced to the fact that I can't judge the decisions of that time outside of the context of the time.

That's fine, I'll take whatever answer you are giving.

Thanks,

Vanhin

[LDSChristian]

Because you said something wrong, so I corrected it. Isn't that great?

I have to put up with people at my ward trying to constantly "correct" me as if they think I'm wrong all the time regardless of me giving a GOOD opinion. And my theory, about them not being allowed to hold the priesthood at that time because some whites would see that as a threat and would probably hurt more blacks, is a good theory. So you don't think God would do something to protect His children? Your theory was what?

Edited January 18, 2011 by LDSChristian

[Wingnut]

Your theory was what?

Have you not read the last 14 pages?

[Vanhin]

Come on y'all, chill out.

[MarginOfError]

I have to put up with people at my ward trying to constantly "correct" me as if they think I'm wrong all the time regardless of me giving a GOOD opinion. And my theory, about them not being allowed to hold the priesthood at that time because some whites would see that as a threat and would probably hurt more blacks, is a good theory. So you don't think God would do something to protect His children? Your theory was what?

There's no need to get defensive. You proposed an explanation, which was a valid attempt. Unfortunately, your explanation doesn't hold up when put under scrutiny. Anatess provided solid counter-example to your explanation which, while it certainly is an explanation, is less likely than others already offered.

That's a very common thing to happen in community discussions. I recommend you start trying to look at this less as something that has a single explanation but something that has multiple and complex contributing factors.

To add to the complexity, in the antebellum period, teaching black people the gospel had pitfalls associated with it that the Church may not have wanted to address. Can a missionary teach the gospel to a slave? Is a slave free to choose baptism? What is a slave to do about the call to gather with the saints? There were many legal, moral, and social complications to the situation. So I say again, any protective decision was probably made more from the stand point of protecting the image, reputation, and assets of the Church than of protecting the lives of individual people of African lineage.

I also have a hard time understanding why the Lord would systematically deny a race the blessings of the gospel to protect them from violence and persecution when the saints of the majority race were suffering violence and persecution.

[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.

I have to put up with people at my ward trying to constantly "correct" me as if they think I'm wrong all the time regardless of me giving a GOOD opinion. And my theory, about them not being allowed to hold the priesthood at that time because some whites would see that as a threat and would probably hurt more blacks, is a good theory. So you don't think God would do something to protect His children? Your theory was what?

LDSChristian. Look at the bolded part of your post above. That's what I'm correcting. There was never a time in LDS History that blacks were not allowed to be members of the church. I don't think you're wrong all the time, but you are wrong THAT time.

And yeah, for my theory... gee... has it been 14 pages already? I only like, have a jillion posts explaining what I think of it...

[Suzie]

Gotcha. So, in such a scenario, is it also plausible in your mind that ten succeeding presidents of the Church, along with generations of apostles were not inspired enough, or had not enough courage collectively to rectify the mistake before 1978? Do you think that it was revelation that lifted the policy, or was it simply the fact that the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve of 1978 were finally able to have consensus on the matter where their predecessors had not been able to in the past?

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.

[Suzie]

LDSChristian. Look at the bolded part of your post above. That's what I'm correcting. There was never a time in LDS History that blacks were not allowed to be members of the church. I don't think you're wrong all the time, but you are wrong THAT time..

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).

[Guest]

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).

Yes, you are right... but it still doesn't "not allow blacks to be members of the church". I think it's an important distinction.

And hey! We're supposed to be agreeing now!

[Vanhin]

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??).

Thanks for your answer.

I don't think that is a very plausible scenario. There is a big difference between what a president of the Church does, speaks, and decides, and what becomes binding policy or doctrine in the Church. Brigham Young advanced at times different theories and doctrines that were not able to pass the process that would make them binding. One such example was Adam-God (See Church doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God - FAIRMormon). That example alone demonstrates that the brethren, even in Brigham Young's time, are not afraid to oppose him (or anyone else) on grounds of false doctrine. This Church has always been the Church of Jesus Christ, and not Joseph's or Brigham's. We sustain all the apostles as prophets seers and revelators, and for good reason.

I didn't get a lot of feedback on my remarks earlier in this thread when I pointed out that the priesthood ban, although lifted, has not been repudiated by the Church, and neither was it repudiated by Elder Holland. On the contrary he appears to maintain the ban's validity, except he questions some of the reasons given, such as less than valiant spirits in the pre-mortal conflict and so forth.

The event that led to the lifting of the ban was not a mere consensus. It was a revelation, and those present at the time, who have spoken about it, attest to the Spirit of the Lord being present when it was received. Naturally, the result was an addition to our canon (Official Declaration 2), which represents binding doctrine. It was the will of the Lord that the ban be lifted, after the many prayers of not just those in the Church at the time, but many generations before them. I recommend you read OD 2, again, if you haven't in a while. There is no hint of "mistake" in that canonized scripture. Check this excerpt out (the boldface is mine).

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. (Official Declaration 2)

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.

There is no doubt about that. It is a matter of recorded history that what you describe was a growing concern of the brethren. Official Declaration 2 says basically that in the first paragraph of the letter portion. However, the desire and prayers of presidents and apostles for the ban to be lifted long before 1978 is also a matter of recorded history.

David O. McKay, for instance, told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought." (See Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, chapter 20 working draft, 13.)

Church Historian Leonard Arrington said that Harold B. Lee had also sought the will of the Lord on the matter and his only answer was "not yet". (See Newell G. Bringhurst, "The 'Missouri Thesis' Revisited: Early Mormonism, Slavery, and the Status of Black People," in Newel K. Bringhurst and Darron T. Smith, eds., Black and Mormon (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004), 13.)

I accept the priesthood ban, it's duration, and the subsequent revelation to lift the ban, as the will of the Lord. Overwhelming evidence points to that, but I certainly see no reason to believe otherwise. I accept Joseph Smith through Thomas S. Monson as servants of the Lord, and I don't believe the Lord would have allowed such a practice to continue as long as it did, with so many people praying for it's change, had it not been His will.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Guest]

Man, Vahnin. You said it in such a wonderful way what I've been bumbling on all along. I love you, man!

[Vanhin]

I also wanted to throw in a couple of quotations concerning the revelation that was received lifting the priesthood ban. I thought these were marvelous accounts worth sharing.

As a historian I sought to learn the particulars and record them in my private diary. The following account is based on dozens of interviews with persons who talked with church officials after the revelation was announced. Although members of the Twelve and the First Presidency with whom I sought interviews felt they should not elaborate on what happened, I learned details from family members and friends to whom they had made comments. . . .

Those in attendance said that as [President Kimball] began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized that it was not Kimball's prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord's. During that prayer some of the Twelve -- at least two who have said so publicly -- were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former presidents of the church (portraits of whom were hanging on the walls around them) smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. . . .

At the end of the heavenly manifestation Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the church members, many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God -- an ineffable experience.

Two of the apostles present described the experience as a "day of Pentecost" similar to the one in the Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest single event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God. (Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 176-177)

And this one from David B. Haight

I would hope someday that our great-grandson Mark and others of our posterity would have similar spiritual experiences and that they would feel the spiritual power and influence of this gospel. I hope that Mark and others will have opportunities such as I had when I was in the temple when President Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation regarding the priesthood. I was the junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I was there. I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards. We just left quietly to go back to the office. No one could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience.

But just a few hours after the announcement was made to the press, I was assigned to attend a stake conference in Detroit, Michigan. When my plane landed in Chicago, I noticed an edition of the Chicago Tribune on the newsstand. The headline in the paper said, "Mormons Give Blacks Priesthood." And the subheading said, "President Kimball Claims to Have Received a Revelation." I bought a copy of the newspaper. I stared at one word in that subheading: claims. It stood out to me just like it was in red neon. As I walked along the hallway to make my plane connection, I thought, Here I am now in Chicago walking through this busy airport, yet I was a witness to this revelation. I was there. I witnessed it. I felt that heavenly influence. I was part of it. Little did the editor of that newspaper realize the truth of that revelation when he wrote, "Claims to Have Received a Revelation." Little did he know, or the printer, or the man who put the ink on the press, or the one who delivered the newspaper -- little did any of them know that it was truly a revelation from God. Little did they know what I knew because I was a witness to it. (David B. Haight, "This Work Is True," Ensign (May 1996), 22.)

Regards,

Vanhin

[LDSChristian]

LDSChristian. Look at the bolded part of your post above. That's what I'm correcting. There was never a time in LDS History that blacks were not allowed to be members of the church. I don't think you're wrong all the time, but you are wrong THAT time.

And yeah, for my theory... gee... has it been 14 pages already? I only like, have a jillion posts explaining what I think of it...

The mark of Cain was also for protection, not just a curse. Anyone that would kill him would be cursed just as Cain was and that would make people not want to kill Cain. He was killed accidentally. And I don't feel like going back so many pages just to look for one post.

[Guest]

The mark of Cain was also for protection, not just a curse. Anyone that would kill him would be cursed just as Cain was and that would make people not want to kill Cain. He was killed accidentally. And I don't feel like going back so many pages just to look for one post.

Okay, I think I'm starting to understand what you're saying... What you were saying about blacks not allowed membership to the church is not that blacks weren't allowed membership in the LDS Church (the church starting in 1830's)? You were actually talking about THE church - you know, like the church since Adam...