Issues with Brigham Young

[LDSChristian]

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...

Finally!!!!

[Guest]

Finally!!!!

Then why didn't you just say so in the first place? :D

[LDSChristian]

Then why didn't you just say so in the first place? :D

I did. You read what I said to say something it didn't say.

[MarginOfError]

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)

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

On the flip side, you have statements documented in David O. McKay: The Rise of Modern Mormonism that seem to tell a different story. The relevant chapter begins on page 60 of the book. Here are a couple of my favorites:

In 1960, [Harold B. Lee] scolded BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson for the presence of black students on the campus, saying "if a granddaughter of mine should ever go to the BYU and become engaged to a colored boy there, I would hold you responsible." His daughter confided to a friend, "My daddy said that as long as he's alive, they'll never have the priesthood."

Benson "charged...that the civil right's movement in the south had been 'fomented almost entirely by the communists,'" and went on to say that "the whole civil rights movement was a 'phony.'" In a private meeting with McKay in 1967, Benson "briefly talked about the plight of the Negroes in the Civil Rights Issue, and how the Communists are using the Negroes to further their own schemes to foment trouble in the United States."

[Hugh B.] Brown pushed hard for the church to speak out in favor of increased civil rights, often as a lone voice among the General Authorities. He achieved some notable successes, but other General Authorities disliked his activism. Members of his family felt that the issue was the reason he was released from the First Presidency upon McKay's death, something that had not occurred to a sitting counselor since the death of Brigham Young nearly a century earlier.

So yeah, I think there exists evidence to suggest that the ban lasted as long as it did due to personal biases and discriminations.

[MarginOfError]

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.

The 'mark of Cain' wasn't a curse at all. It was entirely given for his protection, with the promise that any that should slay him, "vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." The curse of Cain was not a mark, but was his being cut off from the Church. In a very literal sense, he was excommunicated. Categorical exclusion of his posterity from the blessings of the gospel seems, to me anyway, to be contrary to the second Article of Faith.

[Suzie]

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.

You are right so I asked: Where is the revelation concerning the ban? We voted by common consent when the revelation of lifting the ban was revealed but what about when it was placed? I will explain a little further on my post some of my questions.

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.

You mean, the Church who (as any other institution) is very concern about it's image (after our past history) coming forward and saying NOW (after all the work they are doing with PR) to say it was a mistake or repudiate it?

It was the will of the Lord that the ban be lifted,

Was the Lord behind the placement of the ban? (one of my questions).

I look at this purely in a historical context and it doesn't make sense to me. As an example, Zebedee Coltrin says that in 1834, the Prophet Joseph received a revelation that blacks are not to be ordained to the Priesthood (now he says this in 1879, more than 40 years have passed) and he proves to be an unreliable witness, however Elijah Abel was ordained on March 3rd, 1836 by Joseph Smith Jr himself. He is able to get his washing and annointing in Kirtland. He is ordained a Seventy in 1836 by Zebedee Coltrin himself (no, I am not kidding, maybe they didn't have medication for memory loss back then).

In 1839, there was a meeting that discussed Elijah Abel, but his priesthood was not questioned by the Prophet. If what Coltrin said was accurate, this wouldn't have been the case.

However, in 1843 three Apostles restrict Elijah's missionary work but his priesthood is not questioned at all.

A year later, there is another black man ordained to the Priesthood by the youngest brother of Joseph Smith, even Wilford Woodruff makes mention of him (Walker Lewis) on his journal. He mentions that he is an Elder and he is black but again, there is no questioning on his right to hold the Priesthood. Other apostles also visit the city where Brother Lewis live and none of them mention a problem with Brother Lewis.

Why I am making mention of all this? Because as you can see there was never an issue of Blacks holding the Priesthood until something terribly wrong happen....

In 1846 a black man named William McCary was baptized and ordained by Orson Hyde (now this bit of history is ironic because he is one who brought up the idea of blacks being less valiant in the pre-existence)

A year later however, William thought of himself as a "prophet", and seduced a number of women into polygamy and he was excommunicated. It was a very scandalous situation, not only for what happened but also because these women were white and he was black. Did I need to say more?

NOW the whole thing starts getting VERY interesting:

DURING THAT SAME YEAR, Brigham Young declares that Blacks are ineligible for certain temple ordinances. The timing is extremely coincidental (if you want to think of it that way), I think it should be taken into consideration and not dismissed quickly. It is well possible that it was a reaction to the whole William McCary polygamous craziness.

Margaret Young (who studied a lot about the topic, I put a link earlier in this thread with all this information that Margaret and Darius Grey provided) said that one of the Orsons (she couldn't recall whether it was Hyde or Pratt) I bet it was Hyde said to some of these women (paraphrasing) why in the world would they follow someone who has no right to the Priesthood? It's very interesting the comment because until that time, even with this prohibition of certain temple ordinances, the few blacks were still holding the Priesthood.

Brigham Young states after the issue that "it has nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh. We have one of the best elders, an African (walker Lewis) in Lowell."

HOWEVER two years later (1849) he declares:

Because Cain cutt off the lives (sic) of Abel...the Lord cursed Cain's seed and prohibited them from the Priesthood.

So from saying it has nothing to do with blood to NOW (1849) saying it HAS to do with blood, what really happened?

The history gets more interesting when Elijah asks to received his endowments but he is denied by Brigham Young (1853). Now Elijah was not stranger to the Church. He was an Elder, he was a Seventy, served two missions and there is no possible explanation of why someone who HOLDS the Priesthood isn't allowed to receive his own endowments.

Two years after Brigham Young dies, in 1879 Brother Coltrin claims Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy when Joseph smith Jr. learned that Abel was black (yep, Coltrin didn't seem to want to let it go) however Joseph F. Smith challenged his claim and shows TWO certificates of Abel's re-ordination to the office of Seventy.

Now 11 years after Abel's death (1895) Joseph F. Smith again rejects the idea of him being dropped from the priesthood. Elijah's son and grandson are ordained to the Priesthood as far as 1935.

But what happened in 1908? Out of the blue and giving no proof or explanation, Joseph F. Smith who defended Abel's priesthood status in more than one occasion, totally reverses his position and declares that Joseph Smith Jr. established that Abel's ordination was "null and void". The same position he refuted before by providing the CERTIFICATES of Elijah Abel!

Can you see why for me there is no "overwhelming" evidence that the Lord was behind this ban?

[LDSChristian]

The 'mark of Cain' wasn't a curse at all. It was entirely given for his protection, with the promise that any that should slay him, "vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." The curse of Cain was not a mark, but was his being cut off from the Church. In a very literal sense, he was excommunicated. Categorical exclusion of his posterity from the blessings of the gospel seems, to me anyway, to be contrary to the second Article of Faith.

And without the curse there'd be no mark of protection.

[MarginOfError]

And without the curse there'd be no mark of protection.

Very good. Now explain how the mercy of the mark that was predicated on the curse is the same thing as the curse.

[bert10]

Suzie Individually curses can be overcome by faith. A perfect example is Ruth the Moabite whom by faith eventually married Boaz and became an ancestor of Jesus. Yet, the terrible things that lay in store for Moab has never been removed.

Another example None of Israel was Elijah sent to except a poor Widow at Zarephath that belonged to Zidon to whom the Lord sent Elijah. By her faith she was saved.

And also the woman who came from Caanan.

Matthew 15:24 - But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:25 - Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

Matthew 15:26 - But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Matthew 15:27 - And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

Matthew 15:28 - Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour

By faith, an individual can come out from under a cursed placed on a nation. Nations can only be free from their curses when they all come unto Christ by faith as individuals.

So it is not impossible for a son Cain to receive the priesthood. For example part of the curse is....To them who shall remain under the curse..."Genesis 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength;

Which explains a lot concerning Africa. For example When Zimbabwe/Rhodesia was ruled by whites...they were an exporter of Food and of Jobs. Since R. Mugabe took over,,,it went from surpluses to poverty and extreme famines.

bert10

You are right so I asked: Where is the revelation concerning the ban? We voted by common consent when the revelation of lifting the ban was revealed but what about when it was placed? I will explain a little further on my post some of my questions.

You mean, the Church who (as any other institution) is very concern about it's image (after our past history) coming forward and saying NOW (after all the work they are doing with PR) to say it was a mistake or repudiate it?

Was the Lord behind the placement of the ban? (one of my questions).

I look at this purely in a historical context and it doesn't make sense to me. As an example, Zebedee Coltrin says that in 1834, the Prophet Joseph received a revelation that blacks are not to be ordained to the Priesthood (now he says this in 1879, more than 40 years have passed) and he proves to be an unreliable witness, however Elijah Abel was ordained on March 3rd, 1836 by Joseph Smith Jr himself. He is able to get his washing and annointing in Kirtland. He is ordained a Seventy in 1836 by Zebedee Coltrin himself (no, I am not kidding, maybe they didn't have medication for memory loss back then).

In 1839, there was a meeting that discussed Elijah Abel, but his priesthood was not questioned by the Prophet. If what Coltrin said was accurate, this wouldn't have been the case.

However, in 1843 three Apostles restrict Elijah's missionary work but his priesthood is not questioned at all.

A year later, there is another black man ordained to the Priesthood by the youngest brother of Joseph Smith, even Wilford Woodruff makes mention of him (Walker Lewis) on his journal. He mentions that he is an Elder and he is black but again, there is no questioning on his right to hold the Priesthood. Other apostles also visit the city where Brother Lewis live and none of them mention a problem with Brother Lewis.

Why I am making mention of all this? Because as you can see there was never an issue of Blacks holding the Priesthood until something terribly wrong happen....

In 1846 a black man named William McCary was baptized and ordained by Orson Hyde (now this bit of history is ironic because he is one who brought up the idea of blacks being less valiant in the pre-existence)

A year later however, William thought of himself as a "prophet", and seduced a number of women into polygamy and he was excommunicated. It was a very scandalous situation, not only for what happened but also because these women were white and he was black. Did I need to say more?

NOW the whole thing starts getting VERY interesting:

DURING THAT SAME YEAR, Brigham Young declares that Blacks are ineligible for certain temple ordinances. The timing is extremely coincidental (if you want to think of it that way), I think it should be taken into consideration and not dismissed quickly. It is well possible that it was a reaction to the whole William McCary polygamous craziness.

Margaret Young (who studied a lot about the topic, I put a link earlier in this thread with all this information that Margaret and Darius Grey provided) said that one of the Orsons (she couldn't recall whether it was Hyde or Pratt) I bet it was Hyde said to some of these women (paraphrasing) why in the world would they follow someone who has no right to the Priesthood? It's very interesting the comment because until that time, even with this prohibition of certain temple ordinances, the few blacks were still holding the Priesthood.

Brigham Young states after the issue that "it has nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh. We have one of the best elders, an African (walker Lewis) in Lowell."

HOWEVER two years later (1849) he declares:

So from saying it has nothing to do with blood to NOW (1849) saying it HAS to do with blood, what really happened?

The history gets more interesting when Elijah asks to received his endowments but he is denied by Brigham Young (1853). Now Elijah was not stranger to the Church. He was an Elder, he was a Seventy, served two missions and there is no possible explanation of why someone who HOLDS the Priesthood isn't allowed to receive his own endowments.

Two years after Brigham Young dies, in 1879 Brother Coltrin claims Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy when Joseph smith Jr. learned that Abel was black (yep, Coltrin didn't seem to want to let it go) however Joseph F. Smith challenged his claim and shows TWO certificates of Abel's re-ordination to the office of Seventy.

Now 11 years after Abel's death (1895) Joseph F. Smith again rejects the idea of him being dropped from the priesthood. Elijah's son and grandson are ordained to the Priesthood as far as 1935.

But what happened in 1908? Out of the blue and giving no proof or explanation, Joseph F. Smith who defended Abel's priesthood status in more than one occasion, totally reverses his position and declares that Joseph Smith Jr. established that Abel's ordination was "null and void". The same position he refuted before by providing the CERTIFICATES of Elijah Abel!

Can you see why for me there is no "overwhelming" evidence that the Lord was behind this ban?

[Gramajane]

quick note- not having time to read the whole that has gone before.

--- We do not have I understand but a bare minimum of what the apostles in Jesus time said to each other or to the members, and they also had to work things out--

and we need to compare "apples to apples"

so, how can we, if we don't have all they said back then,

but obviously EVERYTHING was not counted as scripture, or we would have a LOT more, and it seems we don't have ANY (?) of the words of some of the apostles??

-- also there is care needed in these latter-days

that what is 'said' to be said (heresy?) without the full source given,

---also whether that source is indisputable in it correctness

(Journal of Discourses IS NOT totally accredited!)

so-- it does seem to be that one could take up a lot of valuable life time to

discuss things about as revelant as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"

-- when what REALLY matters,

is that we first seek to follow the light that we do believe to be from God

as we contine to seek for what more truth there is,

and pray about it--

which would include in my view-

reading with open mind and heart- the Book of Mormon,

and asking God if the latter-day prophets are true.

--- We do not have to accept every off hand remark, but we do need to pay attention to what is said in General Conference, and what is printed in the official church magazines that is the first article from the first presidency.

---- so bottom line about the priesthood?

at this time -- "all worthy male members (of adequate age and accountability ?) may receive the priesthood. -- and there you have it. (in my view :)

[Suzie]

I thought in adding to the mix a quote by J. Reuben Clark. I'll be the first to admit he isn't my favorite past leader to quote on this issue because of his views on the separation of blood in hospitals as well as his views on the Jews...but maybe that's for an entire different topic however I thought in adding this quote:

“There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’

“. . . To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of Johnson’s Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk.

“I do not know if this ever happened, but I say it illustrates a principle—that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people.This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ (J. Reuben Clark Jr, “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?”)

[Vanhin]

On the flip side, you have statements documented in David O. McKay: The Rise of Modern Mormonism that seem to tell a different story. The relevant chapter begins on page 60 of the book. Here are a couple of my favorites:

In 1960, [Harold B. Lee] scolded BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson for the presence of black students on the campus, saying "if a granddaughter of mine should ever go to the BYU and become engaged to a colored boy there, I would hold you responsible." His daughter confided to a friend, "My daddy said that as long as he's alive, they'll never have the priesthood."

Since blacks of African decent could not receive the priesthood and the associated temple blessings at that time, it's not surprising to me that he would not want his granddaughter to become engaged to one. As unfair as it appears, it seems a perfectly logical stance for him to have considering the circumstances.

The second part of the quote seems dubious at best to me. I would like to see something from a more reliable source on that one before I accepted it as fact.

Benson "charged...that the civil right's movement in the south had been 'fomented almost entirely by the communists,'" and went on to say that "the whole civil rights movement was a 'phony.'" In a private meeting with McKay in 1967, Benson "briefly talked about the plight of the Negroes in the Civil Rights Issue, and how the Communists are using the Negroes to further their own schemes to foment trouble in the United States."

I don't see the relevance of this quote. So, Benson, according to this quote, questioned the motives and powers behind the civil rights movement in the south, associating it with a communist plot. How is that relevant?

[Hugh B.] Brown pushed hard for the church to speak out in favor of increased civil rights, often as a lone voice among the General Authorities. He achieved some notable successes, but other General Authorities disliked his activism. Members of his family felt that the issue was the reason he was released from the First Presidency upon McKay's death, something that had not occurred to a sitting counselor since the death of Brigham Young nearly a century earlier.

And this quote is like the last one. Are you trying to say that those leaders in the Church who opposed the civil rights movement were necessarily racists?

So yeah, I think there exists evidence to suggest that the ban lasted as long as it did due to personal biases and discriminations.

Are you trying to demonstrate that the Lord did not lift the priesthood ban before 1978, despite the prayers of the leaders of the Church, because they were racists?

The leaders of the Church before Kimball might have been all out racists, or they might have discriminated against a specific race, but you have not made a very good case to show it.

Besides, racial bias (which is another word for preference, or at worst supremacy) is not demonstrated by the ban to begin with, since it only affected those of a certain lineage. Every other race, be their skin color white, black, brown, or whatever, were allowed to receive the priesthood, but not blacks of African decent.

Lastly, you have not demonstrated that the personal beliefs of the leaders of the Church concerning race can stay the hand of the Lord in this matter anyway. The 1978 revelation proves that despite Elder McConckie's views on race, and President Kimball's views on race and inter-racial marriage, the Lord was quite capable of revealing his will according to his own timetable. There were still many prominent leaders of the Church at that time whose views on race were quite inequitable towards blacks, but that didn't matter to the Lord.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited January 19, 2011 by Vanhin

[Vanhin]

You are right so I asked: Where is the revelation concerning the ban? We voted by common consent when the revelation of lifting the ban was revealed but what about when it was placed? I will explain a little further on my post some of my questions.

We don't know. However, I believe I have demonstrated from a latter-day saint perspective that it was the will of the Lord by the following points.

1) I unequivocally accept Joseph Smith and all the presidents of the Church, together with the apostles who have remained in good standing up to now, as the Lord's authorized servants on matters of Church policy and doctrine.

2) I do not believe God would allow such a practice to persist for so long, especially considering the prayers and pleadings of many of the above servants of the Lord, if it was not his will.

3) I believe the lifting of the ban was authorized by revelation, and revelation alone, and that both eyewitness accounts of the revelation and the wording of Official Declaration 2 imply the Lord's acceptance of the ban, and that there was a "long-promised day" prescribed for when the ban was to be lifted - proving further that it was the Lord's will.

For non-LDS who do not believe that our leaders are true prophets and apostles, my reasoning does very little - I'll admit that.

You mean, the Church who (as any other institution) is very concern about it's image (after our past history) coming forward and saying NOW (after all the work they are doing with PR) to say it was a mistake or repudiate it?

No I don't mean that. I believe the Church would repudiate false doctrine as it has before.

Was the Lord behind the placement of the ban? (one of my questions).

Yes, I believe he was. That is exactly the case I am making.

I look at this purely in a historical context and it doesn't make sense to me. As an example, Zebedee Coltrin says that in 1834, the Prophet Joseph received a revelation that blacks are not to be ordained to the Priesthood (now he says this in 1879, more than 40 years have passed) and he proves to be an unreliable witness, however Elijah Abel was ordained on March 3rd, 1836 by Joseph Smith Jr himself. He is able to get his washing and annointing in Kirtland. He is ordained a Seventy in 1836 by Zebedee Coltrin himself (no, I am not kidding, maybe they didn't have medication for memory loss back then).

In 1839, there was a meeting that discussed Elijah Abel, but his priesthood was not questioned by the Prophet. If what Coltrin said was accurate, this wouldn't have been the case.

However, in 1843 three Apostles restrict Elijah's missionary work but his priesthood is not questioned at all.

A year later, there is another black man ordained to the Priesthood by the youngest brother of Joseph Smith, even Wilford Woodruff makes mention of him (Walker Lewis) on his journal. He mentions that he is an Elder and he is black but again, there is no questioning on his right to hold the Priesthood. Other apostles also visit the city where Brother Lewis live and none of them mention a problem with Brother Lewis.

Why I am making mention of all this? Because as you can see there was never an issue of Blacks holding the Priesthood until something terribly wrong happen....

In 1846 a black man named William McCary was baptized and ordained by Orson Hyde (now this bit of history is ironic because he is one who brought up the idea of blacks being less valiant in the pre-existence)

A year later however, William thought of himself as a "prophet", and seduced a number of women into polygamy and he was excommunicated. It was a very scandalous situation, not only for what happened but also because these women were white and he was black. Did I need to say more?

NOW the whole thing starts getting VERY interesting:

DURING THAT SAME YEAR, Brigham Young declares that Blacks are ineligible for certain temple ordinances. The timing is extremely coincidental (if you want to think of it that way), I think it should be taken into consideration and not dismissed quickly. It is well possible that it was a reaction to the whole William McCary polygamous craziness.

Margaret Young (who studied a lot about the topic, I put a link earlier in this thread with all this information that Margaret and Darius Grey provided) said that one of the Orsons (she couldn't recall whether it was Hyde or Pratt) I bet it was Hyde said to some of these women (paraphrasing) why in the world would they follow someone who has no right to the Priesthood? It's very interesting the comment because until that time, even with this prohibition of certain temple ordinances, the few blacks were still holding the Priesthood.

Brigham Young states after the issue that "it has nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh. We have one of the best elders, an African (walker Lewis) in Lowell."

HOWEVER two years later (1849) he declares:

So from saying it has nothing to do with blood to NOW (1849) saying it HAS to do with blood, what really happened?

The history gets more interesting when Elijah asks to received his endowments but he is denied by Brigham Young (1853). Now Elijah was not stranger to the Church. He was an Elder, he was a Seventy, served two missions and there is no possible explanation of why someone who HOLDS the Priesthood isn't allowed to receive his own endowments.

Two years after Brigham Young dies, in 1879 Brother Coltrin claims Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy when Joseph smith Jr. learned that Abel was black (yep, Coltrin didn't seem to want to let it go) however Joseph F. Smith challenged his claim and shows TWO certificates of Abel's re-ordination to the office of Seventy.

Now 11 years after Abel's death (1895) Joseph F. Smith again rejects the idea of him being dropped from the priesthood. Elijah's son and grandson are ordained to the Priesthood as far as 1935.

But what happened in 1908? Out of the blue and giving no proof or explanation, Joseph F. Smith who defended Abel's priesthood status in more than one occasion, totally reverses his position and declares that Joseph Smith Jr. established that Abel's ordination was "null and void". The same position he refuted before by providing the CERTIFICATES of Elijah Abel!

Well, I do not have reasons for the ban, or explanations for all of those things. Without knowing from the Lord directly why he allowed the ban to persist, we can only speculate.

Can you see why for me there is no "overwhelming" evidence that the Lord was behind this ban?

Sure, I can understand that it is difficult to accept such a thing with such limited understanding at our disposal. However, I accept the priesthood ban, it's duration, and the subsequent revelation to lift the ban, as the will of the Lord, unless the Lord tells us otherwise through his chosen mouthpiece.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Suzie]

Besides, racial bias (which is another word for preference, or at worst supremacy) is not demonstrated by the ban to begin with, since it only affected those of a certain lineage. Every other race, be their skin color white, black, brown, or whatever, were allowed to receive the priesthood, but not blacks of African decent.

That's not accurate (I think I wrote this before earlier in this thread). In 1955 Melanesian "blacks" were given the Priesthood under the direction of David O. McKay, because THEN they were defined/considered from a different linage. The Negritos of the Philippines were given the Priesthood a little earlier. However, previously Fijians were banned from the Priesthood.

[MarginOfError]

Since blacks of African decent could not receive the priesthood and the associated temple blessings at that time, it's not surprising to me that he would not want his granddaughter to become engaged to one. As unfair as it appears, it seems a perfectly logical stance for him to have considering the circumstances.

But you're not considering his objection. The objection was that blacks were even allowed to attend BYU with whites. He objected to desegregating education, and his daughter was a straw man to make his case...much like you're using the straw man now.

The second part of the quote seems dubious at best to me. I would like to see something from a more reliable source on that one before I accepted it as fact.

A more reliable source than his daughter?

I don't see the relevance of this quote. So, Benson, according to this quote, questioned the motives and powers behind the civil rights movement in the south, associating it with a communist plot. How is that relevant?

Fear mongering is the point. It was Benson's favorite trick. "THE COMMIES ARE COMING!" He wasn't being at all subtle about tying civil rights to the advancement of communism. Ergo, it was crucial to deny blacks rights so that communism could be kept in its proper place. In other words, Benson was employing a straw man.

And this quote is like the last one. Are you trying to say that those leaders in the Church who opposed the civil rights movement were necessarily racists?

No, I'm saying that it was commonly held in Brown's family that he wasn't invited back into the First Presidency because of political disagreements about civil rights.

Are you trying to demonstrate that the Lord did not lift the priesthood ban before 1978, despite the prayers of the leaders of the Church, because they were racists?

You misattribute intention again. I merely posit plausibility that feelings on race delayed the lifting of the priesthood ban.

The leaders of the Church before Kimball might have been all out racists, or they might have discriminated against a specific race, but you have not made a very good case to show it.

I haven't tried very hard. I referred you to another source that does do a very good job of documenting the racial predjudices of the brethren of the era.

Besides, racial bias (which is another word for preference, or at worst supremacy) is not demonstrated by the ban to begin with, since it only affected those of a certain lineage. Every other race, be their skin color white, black, brown, or whatever, were allowed to receive the priesthood, but not blacks of African decent.

So you're saying that it isn't racial bias as long as the bias is against one ethnicity?

Lastly, you have not demonstrated that the personal beliefs of the leaders of the Church concerning race can stay the hand of the Lord in this matter anyway. The 1978 revelation proves that despite Elder McConckie's views on race, and President Kimball's views on race and inter-racial marriage, the Lord was quite capable of revealing his will according to his own timetable. There were still many prominent leaders of the Church at that time whose views on race were quite inequitable towards blacks, but that didn't matter to the Lord.

Regards,

Vanhin

Was it the Lord's own timetable, or was it the Lord finally saying that the brethren had delayed long enough? You claim that I haven't demonstrated that personal biases delayed the lifting of the ban, but you haven't demonstrated that it couldn't possibly have been lifted earlier. Kind of puts us at an impasse, doesn't it? Oh, wow...kind of like how I was saying there are multiple plausible explanations. Weird how that happened.

[Vanhin]

That's not accurate (I think I wrote this before earlier in this thread). In 1955 Melanesian "blacks" were given the Priesthood under the direction of David O. McKay, because THEN they were defined/considered from a different linage. The Negritos of the Philippines were given the Priesthood a little earlier. However, previously Fijians were banned from the Priesthood.

It is accurate and what you are saying only supports that. The ban has always been about blacks of African descent, but it was not always clear who all that constituted. The fact that they determined that others were allowed to receive the priesthood without a "revelation" only proves that point, and it proves that white racial bias was not at issue, since other people of color were ordained before 1978.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Suzie]

We don't know. However, I believe I have demonstrated from a latter-day saint perspective that it was the will of the Lord by the following points.

I read all your points carefully but I fail to see your demonstration other than "faith" in the Prophets and leaders. Historically speaking as you said, you was not able to give an explanation to the facts I presented. Therefore, in my view the evidence that the Lord was behind the ban is not "overwhelming". Having said that, I respect your view and testimony. Thanks for sharing.

[Suzie]

It is accurate and what you are saying only supports that. The ban has always been about blacks of African descent, but it was not always clear who all that constituted. The fact that they determined that others were allowed to receive the priesthood without a "revelation" only proves that point, and it proves that white racial bias was not at issue, since other people of color were ordained before 1978.

Regards,

Vanhin

Keeping in mind that Fijians were under the ban for a period of time as stated in my post, may I repeat what Margin previously said?

So you're saying that it isn't racial bias as long as the bias is against one ethnicity?

It reminds me of the saying "I am not racist, I have a friend who is black".

Also, keeping always a historical context. How many Melanesians, Fijians, Negritoes were around Brigham Young and some consequent leaders? If we give the possibility of prejudice a little thought, it is not crazy to think they didn't have issues with these folks because they were not around them, they were far away but blacks of African origin, did.

[Suzie]

The leaders of the Church before Kimball might have been all out racists, or they might have discriminated against a specific race, but you have not made a very good case to show it.

I am curious. You ask with relation to the ban or simply "racist"?

[Vanhin]

Since blacks of African decent could not receive the priesthood and the associated temple blessings at that time, it's not surprising to me that he would not want his granddaughter to become engaged to one. As unfair as it appears, it seems a perfectly logical stance for him to have considering the circumstances.

But you're not considering his objection. The objection was that blacks were even allowed to attend BYU with whites. He objected to desegregating education, and his daughter was a straw man to make his case...much like you're using the straw man now.

I am considering his objection. BYU is an LDS school. I suppose that one of the reasons young single members attend BYU is to increase their prospects of finding someone who would be able to marry them in the temple. I know I have personally known people who chose BYU for that reason. It seems to me he is concerned about inter-racial marriages between black and white members who meet at BYU because it would prevent them and their children from receiving the blessings of the priesthood. In the context of the times, when blacks of African descent could not hold the priesthood, it seems to me to be a logical concern. Him using his own granddaughter as an example is clearly not a straw man, but a glimpse into his reasoning.

If the Church did not allow a certain lineage to hold the priesthood, then even I would have a problem with my own daughter marrying someone of that lineage. I worry about my children marrying outside of the Church, or being in situations where they might fall in love with someone unlikely to join the Church, for the same reason. I'm sure however, that just like me, President Lee, a righteous prophet of God, would love his granddaughter and her husband even if she married someone who could not receive the priesthood (or did not want the priesthood).

The second part of the quote seems dubious at best to me. I would like to see something from a more reliable source on that one before I accepted it as fact.

A more reliable source than his daughter?

No, I mean a more reliable source than a book that claims a friend of Lee's daughter claims that the daughter told her that her father had said something racist. That's dubious. The source you provided might be sufficient to support the notion that there was a girl who claimed such a thing, but it's not very reliable in supporting the truth of the claim that she made. A primary source, such as the daughter's journal describing the words of her father would be better.

I don't see the relevance of this quote. So, Benson, according to this quote, questioned the motives and powers behind the civil rights movement in the south, associating it with a communist plot. How is that relevant?

Fear mongering is the point. It was Benson's favorite trick. "THE COMMIES ARE COMING!" He wasn't being at all subtle about tying civil rights to the advancement of communism. Ergo, it was crucial to deny blacks rights so that communism could be kept in its proper place. In other words, Benson was employing a straw man.

Actually, if you know anything about Benson at all, you would know that it is far more plausible that he was more concerned about the advancement of communism than denying rights to black Americans. Even so, it seems you are saying that those opposed to the civil rights movement in question are necessarily racists. Do you believe those opposed to the women's rights movement in America are necessarily male chauvinists, and that those opposed to gay rights are necessarily homophobes?

And this quote is like the last one. Are you trying to say that those leaders in the Church who opposed the civil rights movement were necessarily racists?

No, I'm saying that it was commonly held in Brown's family that he wasn't invited back into the First Presidency because of political disagreements about civil rights.

I see, then how is that relevant?

Are you trying to demonstrate that the Lord did not lift the priesthood ban before 1978, despite the prayers of the leaders of the Church, because they were racists?

You misattribute intention again. I merely posit plausibility that feelings on race delayed the lifting of the priesthood ban.

Again? I wasn't aware that I had misattributed your intentions to begin with. I am asking you to clarify what you mean, so that I can attribute your intentions properly.

The leaders of the Church before Kimball might have been all out racists, or they might have discriminated against a specific race, but you have not made a very good case to show it.

I haven't tried very hard. I referred you to another source that does do a very good job of documenting the racial predjudices of the brethren of the era.

Besides, racial bias (which is another word for preference, or at worst supremacy) is not demonstrated by the ban to begin with, since it only affected those of a certain lineage. Every other race, be their skin color white, black, brown, or whatever, were allowed to receive the priesthood, but not blacks of African decent.

So you're saying that it isn't racial bias as long as the bias is against one ethnicity?

Bias is favoritism. If the policy favored the white race exclusively, then there would be a stronger case for bias. But since the intention of the policy was to ban blacks of African descent from holding the priesthood, yet other people of color could hold the priesthood before 1978, without special revelation, then it is clear to me that the will of the Lord is a more plausible explanation than racism, coupled with the other points that I have made.

I suppose it is possible that the people behind the ban accepted all other races as superior over black Africans, enough to keep the priesthood from them, but that seems very unlikely to me.

Lastly, you have not demonstrated that the personal beliefs of the leaders of the Church concerning race can stay the hand of the Lord in this matter anyway. The 1978 revelation proves that despite Elder McConckie's views on race, and President Kimball's views on race and inter-racial marriage, the Lord was quite capable of revealing his will according to his own timetable. There were still many prominent leaders of the Church at that time whose views on race were quite inequitable towards blacks, but that didn't matter to the Lord.

Regards,

Vanhin

Was it the Lord's own timetable, or was it the Lord finally saying that the brethren had delayed long enough? You claim that I haven't demonstrated that personal biases delayed the lifting of the ban, but you haven't demonstrated that it couldn't possibly have been lifted earlier. Kind of puts us at an impasse, doesn't it? Oh, wow...kind of like how I was saying there are multiple plausible explanations. Weird how that happened.

We are at an impasse, no doubt.

I did demonstrate that prophets of the Lord had prayed about the matter before 1978. That is a fact. So, if the Lord wished to lift the ban earlier, he could have. I do not accept the possibility that the ban was in error, based on our current knowledge, and as it stands, statements made by the Church on the matter support my conclusion. There has not been any repudiation of the ban itself, only a repudiation of reasons given for it by those with limited understanding. Even the wording of the scripture that lifts the ban contains no hint that the policy was in error, which is no small thing.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Keeping in mind that Fijians were under the ban for a period of time as stated in my post, may I repeat what Margin previously said?

And it would have been because of confusion about their lineage. The ban only affected blacks of African descent. Even though others were lumped into that category at first who should not have been, that was the intent of the ban, and it appears that as soon as they felt that a group of people were not black Africans, they allowed them to hold the priesthood.

Yet, for the black Africans, a specific revelation was required, received, and canonized before they were allowed to receive the priesthood.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

I am curious. You ask with relation to the ban or simply "racist"?

I don't understand the question. Mind clarifying what you mean for me?

Thanks,

Vanhin

Edited January 19, 2011 by Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Also, keeping always a historical context. How many Melanesians, Fijians, Negritoes were around Brigham Young and some consequent leaders? If we give the possibility of prejudice a little thought, it is not crazy to think they didn't have issues with these folks because they were not around them, they were far away but blacks of African origin, did.

It's not beyond reason to think that some of those groups would have been mistaken as people of African descent at first. But the intention of the policy was always to ban blacks of African descent from holding the priesthood, and no other people, and that's what it was until the ban was lifted by way of revelation.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited January 19, 2011 by Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Okay, I have spent too much time on all this for one day. Gonna take a little break.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Backroads]

:popcorn:And I was so enjoying reading this debate!