Issues with Brigham Young

[areyoutrueblue]

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught many outlandish things that they got persecuted for, and if racism was not part of the restored gospel, they should have taught that as well. If racism was truly part of the restored gospel, then we can consider them true prophets of God. Otherwise, they taught their own personal racist beliefs regardless of any restored gospel, or they weren't prophets of God.

[Vanhin]

Suzie,

Sorry about the delay.

* The 1978 lifting of the ban was due to direct revelation to authorized servants of the Lord.

* Official Declaration 2 (OD-2) is the word of the Lord unto all latter-day saints concerning the lifting of the ban.

* Wording in OD-2 says that the ban was to be lifted on the "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan".

* The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray.

* The Lord allowed the policy to persist in His Church, despite inquiries from several generations of true prophets and apostles.

* The Church has never repudiated the policy as false doctrine.

Vanhin, thanks but I fail to see how these beliefs of yours prove that the Lord was behind the ban. Maybe you would like to break it down? (if you have time and energy, if you don't I completely understand).

* The 1978 lifting of the ban was due to direct revelation to authorized servants of the Lord.

- Official Declaration 2 (OD-2) is the word of the Lord unto all latter-day saints concerning the lifting of the ban.

-- Wording in OD-2 says that the ban was to be lifted on the "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan".

If one accepts the 1978 event as revelation, and OD-2 as scripture, then one would also accept the message contained in the scripture which indicates that the "long-promised day" of the lifting of the band was according to "God's eternal plan". That means, the ban was God's will. Otherwise, every day the ban was in effect would be the day the ban should have been lifted. At the very least, this proves that God allowed the plan to persist until that "long-promised day", and that the lifting of it was according to His will. If one accepts OD-2 as scripture that is.

* The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray.

- The Lord allowed the policy to persist in His Church, despite inquiries from several generations of true prophets and apostles.

If one accepts it as true that "The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray", and if one accepts all the prophets from Joseph Smith to Spencer W. Kimball as true prophets of God, then one cannot conclude anything else concerning this matter except that it was part of God's plan. This ban on priesthood prevented not only men of African descent from receiving the priesthood, but also both men and women from receiving the ordinances of the temple for so many years. That would be "leading the Church astray" by each of the "living" prophets during the duration of the ban. If one believes that the Lord would not allow the prophet(s) to lead His Church astray, then one cannot conclude anything else, except that the ban was according His "eternal plan".

* The Church has never repudiated the policy as false doctrine.

This is a fact. Not only that, the former policy is still referred to as a commandment or a revelation, by current and past prophets and apostles since 1978, when the ban was lifted. There is no mention in any of the rhetoric, by leaders of the Church or by the official declaration that was canonized, that the policy itself was a mistake, therefore the question of the ban's authority is not really even a matter of debate. For those who accept the other points as true that is. However, the reasons concerning why God would require such a thing, is clearly debatable, and until the Lord reveals it to us, those reasons will remain necessarily speculative.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited January 23, 2011 by Vanhin

[Suzie]

If one accepts the 1978 event as revelation, and OD-2 as scripture, then one would also accept the message contained in the scripture which indicates that the "long-promised day" of the lifting of the band was according to "God's eternal plan". That means, the ban was God's will.

I respectfully disagree. If a person accepts the OD-2 as scripture then they will have an indication that it was the God's will to lift the ban, it doesn't say He was behind the placement of the ban (that's the issue I am more interested in) so I am not sure what's your reasoning behind that statement, it doesn't make sense to me.

At the very least, this proves that God allowed the plan to persist until that "long-promised day", and that the lifting of it was according to His will. If one accepts OD-2 as scripture that is.

Agreed, taking also into consideration that there were a lot of external and social factors that probably "sped up" that "revelation" (such as the case with Polygamy as well).

If one accepts it as true that "The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray", and if one accepts all the prophets from Joseph Smith to Spencer W. Kimball as true prophets of God, then one cannot conclude anything else concerning this matter except that it was part of God's plan. This ban on priesthood prevented not only men of African descent from receiving the priesthood, but also both men and women from receiving the ordinances of the temple for so many years. That would be "leading the Church astray" by each of the "living" prophets during the duration of the ban. If one believes that the Lord would not allow the prophet(s) to lead His Church astray, then one cannot conclude anything else, except that the ban was according His "eternal plan".

I suppose we need to define what exactly means that the Prophet will never lead the Church astray. We always hear this statement but what does exactly entitles? I can think of a few teachings that Prophets have taught from the pulpit and a few that were repudiated by the modern Church. Are we saying that the Adam God theory, Blood Atonement, Calling and Election, etc and so many other teachings were the will of the Lord for the members at that time? That the Lord was speaking through the Prophet at that time? As an example, I am aware that the Adam-God theory was repudiated and was never considered doctrine because it was not put to vote by the membership neither considered by the Quorum of the Twelve therefore was never binding upon the membership (even though it was clearly taught)...then how these things apply to the topic at hand? Where does it state that the Lord spoke through Brigham Young and told him to deny the blessings of the Priesthood and the rights to endowments to black members of the Church? Where is the revelation concerning this issue? Why wasn't such revelation presented to the body of Saints for the sustaining vote?

* The Church has never repudiated the policy as false doctrine.

Because it was NEVER doctrinal. They taught it as such but it was never doctrinal, they made it binding upon black members yet wasn't doctrinal. If you notice, only with time Prophets talked about a "policy" instead of "doctrine" with regards to this issue and moved from knowing exactly what it caused the ban (Curse of Cain, less valiant in the pre-existence, etc) to right now just "don't know' what was the cause.

One of the greatest mysteries in LDS history. No doubt.

[Suzie]

I discussed Elijah Abel in one of my earlier posts and the fact that his mission was restricted by three Church Apostles (prior to that meeting, his ethnicity was never an issue). It was a turning point for black members of the Church.

In Elijah Abel and the Changing Status of Blacks Within Mormonism by Newell G. Bringhurst (Phd) who is an active member of the Church and a past president of both the Mormon History Association and the John Whitmer Historical Association, this issue is discussed and the context of such meeting.

On the surface it was just another regional conference for the small but troubled Cincinnati branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on a summer day in June 1843. Not unlike other early branches of the Church, the Cincinnati congregation had a number of problems, including internal dissension and just plain "bad management." Presiding over this conference was a "Traveling High Council" consisting of three Mormon apostles. As the visiting council probed the difficulties plaguing the Cincinnati Saints, its attention was drawn to the activities of Elijah Abel, a unique member of the branch. Abel, a black Mormon priesthood holder, found himself under fire because of his visibility as a black Mormon. Apostle John E. Page maintained that while "he respects a coloured Bro, wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public." Apostle Orson Pratt then "sustained the position of Bro Page" on this question. Apostle Heber C. Kimball also expressed concern about this black priesthood holder's activities. In response, Abel "said he had no disposition to force himself upon an equality with white people." Toward the end of the meeting, a resolution was adopted restricting Abel's activities. To conform with the established "duty of the 12 [Apostles] to ordain and send men to their native country Bro Abels [sic] was advised to visit the coloured population. The advice was sanctioned by the conference. Instructions were then given him concerning his mission."

[Suzie]

Also I would like quote Spencer W. Kimball from Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball 6/15/63:

The prophets for 133 years of the existence of the Church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation. I believe in the living prophets as much or almost more than the dead ones. They are here to clarify and reaffirm. I have served with and under three of them. The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure....

It seems to me that President Kimball himself was open to the possibility of a "mistake or error" with regards to the ban.

[Vanhin]

If one accepts the 1978 event as revelation, and OD-2 as scripture, then one would also accept the message contained in the scripture which indicates that the "long-promised day" of the lifting of the band was according to "God's eternal plan". That means, the ban was God's will.

I respectfully disagree. If a person accepts the OD-2 as scripture then they will have an indication that it was the God's will to lift the ban, it doesn't say He was behind the placement of the ban (that's the issue I am more interested in) so I am not sure what's your reasoning behind that statement, it doesn't make sense to me.

Well the one sentence from my first paragraph that you skipped was part of the point I was making. This one -> "Otherwise, every day the ban was in effect would be the day the ban should have been lifted."

In other words, if it wasn't God's will that there was a ban to begin with, then there would not be a "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan" when the ban should be lifted. The first day of the ban and every day thereafter would have been against God's will. But clearly there was a "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan", or OD-2 is not scripture.

At the very least, this proves that God allowed the plan to persist until that "long-promised day", and that the lifting of it was according to His will. If one accepts OD-2 as scripture that is.

Agreed, taking also into consideration that there were a lot of external and social factors that probably "sped up" that "revelation" (such as the case with Polygamy as well).

The other factors are irrelevant in light of OD-2. If the scripture is true, then it was the Lord's time for lifting the ban, according to His "eternal plan".

If one accepts it as true that "The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray", and if one accepts all the prophets from Joseph Smith to Spencer W. Kimball as true prophets of God, then one cannot conclude anything else concerning this matter except that it was part of God's plan. This ban on priesthood prevented not only men of African descent from receiving the priesthood, but also both men and women from receiving the ordinances of the temple for so many years. That would be "leading the Church astray" by each of the "living" prophets during the duration of the ban. If one believes that the Lord would not allow the prophet(s) to lead His Church astray, then one cannot conclude anything else, except that the ban was according His "eternal plan".

I suppose we need to define what exactly means that the Prophet will never lead the Church astray. We always hear this statement but what does exactly entitles? I can think of a few teachings that Prophets have taught from the pulpit and a few that were repudiated by the modern Church. Are we saying that the Adam God theory, Blood Atonement, Calling and Election, etc and so many other teachings were the will of the Lord for the members at that time? That the Lord was speaking through the Prophet at that time? As an example, I am aware that the Adam-God theory was repudiated and was never considered doctrine because it was not put to vote by the membership neither considered by the Quorum of the Twelve therefore was never binding upon the membership (even though it was clearly taught)

What is significant, is that the policy survived many generations of prophets and apostles, where as Adam-God, and blood atonement, were clearly not established policies, practices, or doctrines of the Church. Policies enacted and maintained by the Church, such as those found in the handbook of instructions, are the will of the Lord to the Saints, for any given time.

I'm not sure why you lumped "Calling and Election" into that list. It is clearly an official doctrine of the Church, and is found in our scriptures (See Guide to the Scriptures: Calling and Election). But that's really a topic for another thread. Just wanted to point that out.

...then how these things apply to the topic at hand? Where does it state that the Lord spoke through Brigham Young and told him to deny the blessings of the Priesthood and the rights to endowments to black members of the Church? Where is the revelation concerning this issue? Why wasn't such revelation presented to the body of Saints for the sustaining vote?

I don't know. It's not even clear whether Brigham Young or Joseph Smith was the originator of the teachings that led to the ban. I'm sure you are aware of that, though it appears to be a foregone conclusion for you that it was Young. I'm not taking a stand on that issue one way or another because I don't know.

Based on some of the reasons given in the past, it is possible that the brethren felt there was scriptural justification for the ban already. However, this enters the realm of speculation. Whatever the circumstance that led to the ban, we cannot escape the fact that the Lord allowed several generations of living prophets to maintain the ban, until the "long-promised day" in his "eternal plan".

* The Church has never repudiated the policy as false doctrine.

Because it was NEVER doctrinal. They taught it as such but it was never doctrinal, they made it binding upon black members yet wasn't doctrinal.

Okay, let's take a look at this. You are saying that "the Church never repudiated the policy as false doctrine because it never was doctrinal". Does that mean then that if the policy was "doctrinal" the Church would/should repudiate it? Clearly that is nonsense. If it was indeed NOT doctrinal, or in other words "false doctrine", then the Church would have a reason to repudiate it as such. Since it was taught as doctrine, and the Church has not repudiated as such, then this point continues to support my conclusion.

If you notice, only with time Prophets talked about a "policy" instead of "doctrine" with regards to this issue and moved from knowing exactly what it caused the ban (Curse of Cain, less valiant in the pre-existence, etc) to right now just "don't know' what was the cause.

And some still call the former "policy" doctrine, commandment, or revelation, as I have pointed out. Calling something a "policy" does not make it any less the Lord's will, if indeed it was.

Thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my post. :)

Regards,

Vanhin

[JohnnyRudick]

nathan, unless you got an infraction or someone called you out specifically i suggest you don't make comments assuming someone is talking to you. my comment was pretty general and pam thanked it. that's all there was to it. your comment makes you look guilty, not a good way to stay under the radar.

Throw a rock into the dark and if you hear a yelp, you know ya hit one:D

[Nathan6329]

So do we or do we not believe blacks are cursed like this video says here?

YouTube - A Mormon Explaining How Blacks are Cursed

[Vanhin]

Also I would like quote Spencer W. Kimball from Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball 6/15/63:

The prophets for 133 years of the existence of the Church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation. I believe in the living prophets as much or almost more than the dead ones. They are here to clarify and reaffirm. I have served with and under three of them. The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure....

It seems to me that President Kimball himself was open to the possibility of a "mistake or error" with regards to the ban.

This is a wonderful quote.

The things of God cannot be understood by the spirit of men. ...I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough. The prophets for 133 years of the existence of the Church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation....The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure.

He is making the same point I was, that "The prophets for 133 years of the existence of the Church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation...", and he says that is "enough" for him.

He says it is "his [the Lord's] policy", and that he wished the Lord have been more clear about it.

He also identifies Joseph Smith as originator of the position, as the "prophet of the Restoration".

If the Lord were to reveal to us that the policy was an "error" then I would accept that as fact. But He has not done so yet, even though He did reveal that the "long-promised day" had arrived according to His "eternal plan".

Regards,

Vanhin

[Just_A_Guy]

So do we or do we not believe blacks are cursed like this video says here?

What "we believe", as Mormons, is that at one point blacks were not permitted to have the priesthood; and now they are.

Anything more is shots in the dark.

[Suzie]

Well the one sentence from my first paragraph that you skipped was part of the point I was making. This one -> "Otherwise, every day the ban was in effect would be the day the ban should have been lifted."

In other words, if it wasn't God's will that there was a ban to begin with, then there would not be a "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan" when the ban should be lifted. The first day of the ban and every day thereafter would have been against God's will. But clearly there was a "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan", or OD-2 is not scripture.

It seems like we are seeing this completely different. I am reading this and re-reading it and yet I don't see what you see: That the Lord was behind the placement of the ban,

What is significant, is that the policy survived many generations of prophets and apostles, where as Adam-God, and blood atonement, were clearly not established policies, practices, or doctrines of the Church. Policies enacted and maintained by the Church, such as those found in the handbook of instructions, are the will of the Lord to the Saints, for any given time.

Yes, it survived many generations but again...does it mean the Lord was behind it? I have serious doubts. Did they have a handbook of instructions in that era? If you take into consideration the Adam-God theory and the blood atonement (both taught by Brigham Young) and the fact the Saints received the teaching by a PROPHET of the Lord and believed it as doctrinal...Taking into consideration his role and authority..Would you consider that the Prophet was leading the Church astray? Why/why not?

I don't know. It's not even clear whether Brigham Young or Joseph Smith was the originator of the teachings that led to the ban. I'm sure you are aware of that, though it appears to be a foregone conclusion for you that it was Young. I'm not taking a stand on that issue one way or another because I don't know.

I have never seen any documents/sources that show that Joseph Smith Jr. is the originator of the ban. If you do have some references, I would be glad to check it. Thank you.

Whatever the circumstance that led to the ban, we cannot escape the fact that the Lord allowed several generations of living prophets to maintain the ban, until the "long-promised day" in his "eternal plan".

But those circumstances and whether it came from the Lord or not is what I'm looking for. Yes, the Lord possibly allowed several generations to maintain the ban and having read how some members of the Church at that time reacted when the ban was lifted one can understand a little more. We should also take into consideration the views on race of those Prophets you make mention of.

You are saying that "the Church never repudiated the policy as false doctrine because it never was doctrinal". Does that mean then that if the policy was "doctrinal" the Church would/should repudiate it? Clearly that is nonsense. If it was indeed NOT doctrinal, or in other words "false doctrine", then the Church would have a reason to repudiate it as such. Since it was taught as doctrine, and the Church has not repudiated as such, then this point continues to support my conclusion.

You really confused me there. My point is that the Church can never repudiate something that was never doctrinal in the first place. In my opinion is quite naive to think the Church then or even now would come up and say the ban was a mistake and repudiate it when thousand of worthy males (and females in the case of temple ordinances) were affected and deprived from the Priesthood.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Suzie

[Suzie]

He is making the same point I was, that "The prophets for 133 years of the existence of the Church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation...", and he says that is "enough" for him.

So basically we are saying it was followed out of tradition? That's even more concerning.

He also identifies Joseph Smith as originator of the position, as the "prophet of the Restoration".

Identifying Joseph Smith as the originator of the position isn't new. Geoge Q. Cannon was of the thought that it originated with the Prophet even though he never heard him saying but was "told" by John Taylor who also did not hear him saying it. I won't even mention Zebedee Coltrin whose memory (as explained earlier in this thread) proved to be unreliable so unless we can come up with some sources, I would say it was Brigham Young the originator.

If the Lord were to reveal to us that the policy was an "error" then I would accept that as fact. But He has not done so yet, even though He did reveal that the "long-promised day" had arrived according to His "eternal plan".

Well, I don't think any of us can claim it as "fact" unless it is revealed to us by the Lord however weighing the evidence I lean towards that possibility, also the fact that President Kimball himself saw that possibility (as previously quoted) makes you wonder.

[Nathan6329]

What "we believe", as Mormons, is that at one point blacks were not permitted to have the priesthood; and now they are.

Anything more is shots in the dark.

I hope there was no pun intended about that shots in the "dark" comment, lol.

However, I'm not talking about the priesthood. I know there was a time we didn't allow them in the priesthood.

I'm saying, is there or is there not a belief that blacks are cursed in some way?

[Suzie]

So do we or do we not believe blacks are cursed like this video says here?

YouTube - A Mormon Explaining How Blacks are Cursed

At present time, the official position is "we don't know". It wasn't always the case.

[Vanhin]

You really confused me there. My point is that the Church can never repudiate something that was never doctrinal in the first place.

Adam-God was never doctrinal in the first place either, yet it was repudiated. That's what false doctrine is.

If it was "doctrinal" then it doesn't get repudiated. So, my point continues to support my conclusion. The Church has never repudiated the ban as "false doctrine".

In my opinion is quite naive to think the Church then or even now would come up and say the ban was a mistake and repudiate it when thousand of worthy males (and females in the case of temple ordinances) were affected and deprived from the Priesthood.

I am naive then. :) What do you propose is going on? Do you really think that the living prophets and apostles are being dishonest to "save face" as you opined in an earlier post?

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

So basically we are saying it was followed out of tradition? That's even more concerning.

He is saying "The Lord will not allow the living prophet to lead the Church astray", and since so many of the prophets before him upheld the ban, that is good enough for him. That's the same thing I was saying. If so many prophets upheld the ban, then it must be the Lord's will, since the Lord could have revealed it as an error at any time, if that was the case. If they were true prophets that is...

Regards,

Vanhin

[Suzie]

What do you propose is going on? Do you really think that the living prophets and apostles are being dishonest to "save face" as you opined in an earlier post?

Too bad that you are seeing this only through one perspective.

It's not about being dishonest and "save face" (I didn't not write that so please don't add words I haven't written neither assume "intent" when you really don't know)

I don't propose anything. I think if the ban was a mistake... by the Church denouncing it now would open a new can of worms that would create hate and hostility towards the Church and its past leaders. It would question the Church in so many levels, it would affect thousands of people worldwide, wounds from the past would once again be open and whatever healing process that took years to achieve will be completely and utterly wasted. It IS indeed naive to think that the Church would be willing to sacrifice so much to make a statement. Can you see now what I mean?

Edit: Also, entirely through a PR perspective do you think the Church would be willing to make a statement and repudiate the policy knowing the effect that will have on the media? Can you imagine? This is not about dishonesty or saving face, it is also a matter of media scrutiny, PR, image, etc. The Church has worked very hard to be in the position it is right now, no way on earth they would sacrifice that.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Suzie

[MarginOfError]

* The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray.

- The Lord allowed the policy to persist in His Church, despite inquiries from several generations of true prophets and apostles.

If one accepts it as true that "The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray", and if one accepts all the prophets from Joseph Smith to Spencer W. Kimball as true prophets of God, then one cannot conclude anything else concerning this matter except that it was part of God's plan. This ban on priesthood prevented not only men of African descent from receiving the priesthood, but also both men and women from receiving the ordinances of the temple for so many years. That would be "leading the Church astray" by each of the "living" prophets during the duration of the ban. If one believes that the Lord would not allow the prophet(s) to lead His Church astray, then one cannot conclude anything else, except that the ban was according His "eternal plan".

This is where you lose me. Establishing a bad policy isn't quite the same as leading the Church astray. The whole time the ban was in place, the leaders were preaching faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost, obedience to covenants and commandments...they were teaching all the right principles.

For a long time the Church was heavily outspoken against the use of birth control. They've changed their position quite a bit from 100 years ago. Yet, several successive prophets taught about the evils of birth control. Were they leading the church astray?

[Vanhin]

What do you propose is going on? Do you really think that the living prophets and apostles are being dishonest to "save face" as you opined in an earlier post?

Too bad that you are seeing this only through one perspective.

It's not about being dishonest and "save face" (I didn't not write that so please don't add words I haven't written neither assume "intent" when you really don't know)

Well I certainly am not intentionally misrepresenting you. But you did say the following in post 157.

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?

I'll just let the reader decide for themselves on that one then.

Anyway, I don't think we will agree on this anytime soon. :) Let's save something for the next time this topic comes up.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

And thank you Suzie for the lively debate.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[MarginOfError]

Adam-God was never doctrinal in the first place either, yet it was repudiated. That's what false doctrine is.

It was repudiated because it was being taught as doctrine. That is, a leader in a position of authority--the highest position of authority in the temporal organization of the Church--was teaching false doctrine. He had good intentions, and he was convinced of it's truthfulness, but regardless, it had to be repudiated by later leaders. Line upon line, precept upon precept applies to the Church's theology as well.

If it was "doctrinal" then it doesn't get repudiated. So, my point continues to support my conclusion. The Church has never repudiated the ban as "false doctrine".

Yet all of the justifications for the ban were repudiated as false doctrine (as we've demonstrated already). But the ban itself wasn't a doctrinal issue. It was a policy issue, and was reversed. Policies generally get reversed for one of two reasons, 1) they've outlived their usefulness, or 2) they were bad policies to begin with. All we've said so far is that both of those options are possibilities.

I am naive then. :) What do you propose is going on? Do you really think that the living prophets and apostles are being dishonest to "save face" as you opined in an earlier post?

Regards,

Vanhin

You are trying to assign way too much value to our statements. We're trying to look at this from an academic standpoint. You're trying to look at it from a dogmatic standpoint--which is clear from your unwillingness to respond to questions that you can't answer without weakening your own position. ie, you've not addressed the part of Kimball's quote that she's directly asked you about.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm saying, is there or is there not a belief that blacks are cursed in some way?

There was previously. There is not now.

[Suzie]

Well I certainly am not intentionally misrepresenting you. But you did say the following in post 157.

I'll just let the reader decide for themselves on that one then.

Anyway, I don't think we will agree on this anytime soon. :) Let's save something for the next time this topic comes up.

Regards,

Vanhin

Yes, I said that maybe we both posted at the same time (I was doing an edit on my post). I stand by it. Thanks for the debate.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just some random thoughts/responses:

I don't propose anything. I think if the ban was a mistake... by the Church denouncing it now would open a new can of worms that would create hate and hostility towards the Church and its past leaders. It would question the Church in so many levels, it would affect thousands of people worldwide, wounds from the past would once again be open and whatever healing process that took years to achieve will be completely and utterly wasted. It IS indeed naive to think that the Church would be willing to sacrifice so much to make a statement. Can you see now what I mean?

I can see what you mean, but I think other churches have acknowledged "mistakes" of a far more grave nature and still come off OK on the PR front.

This is where you lose me. Establishing a bad policy isn't quite the same as leading the Church astray. The whole time the ban was in place, the leaders were preaching faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost, obedience to covenants and commandments...they were teaching all the right principles.

Doesn't this minimalize the way that the ban affected the Church's black membership--and (by virtue of the way the Church consequently deployed its proselytizing resources) its potential membership? If the policy does not come from God, then doesn't it actually undermine the Church's stated aims with regard to a vast segment of the population?

Like you, I have a healthy dose of deist philosophy; I acknowledge--as Susie pointed out earlier--that God doesn't miraculously intervene to correct every injustice in the world. On the other hand, I'd like to believe that--if the LDS Church is what it purports to be--the church's leadership would be a little more open to correction than your run-of-the-mill warmonger, rapist, or child abuser.

A couple of more general thoughts:

1) Why does it matter whether the ban originated with Young or Smith, if they were both prophets?

2) Are all Church policies not specifically endorsed by canonized revelation, immediately suspect?

3) Other than the fact that a) it is odious to our post-civil rights sensibilities, and b) it offends some people's notions of the manner in which the gospel ought to be preached to the entire world; is there really a doctrinal case to be made against priesthood ban (as a policy per se, apart from the justifications offered on its behalf)?

Edited January 24, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Nathan6329]

There was previously. There is not now.

So was this belief changed to be more socially acceptable or was it changed because it was an incorrect teaching in the first place?

Are blacks cursed at birth?