President Kimball and priesthood extended to all

[NoGreaterLove]

I have read some on this forum discussing the Black race and holding the priesthood. I am so happy that everyone can hold the priesthood. Below I have posted many quotes on the subject. Draw your own conclusions. All are from prophets or apostles.

President Kimball Directs

When we were alone by ourselves in that sacred place where we meet weekly to wait upon the Lord, to seek guidance from his Spirit, and to transact the affairs of his earthly kingdom, President Kimball brought up the matter of the possible conferral of the priesthood upon those of all races. This was a subject that the group of us had discussed at length on numerous occasions in the preceding weeks and months. The President restated the problem involved, reminded us of our prior discussions, and said he had spent many days alone in this upper room pleading with the Lord for an answer to our prayers. He said that if the answer was to continue our present course of denying the priesthood to the seed of Cain, as the Lord had theretofore directed, he was prepared to defend that decision to the death. But, he said, if the long-sought day had come in which the curse of the past was to be removed, he thought we might prevail upon the Lord so to indicate. He expressed the hope that we might receive a clear answer one way or the other so the matter might be laid to rest.

The Brethren Share Feelings

At this point President Kimball asked the Brethren if any of them desired to express their feelings and views as to the matter in hand. We all did so, freely and fluently and at considerable length, each person stating his views and manifesting the feelings of his heart. There was a marvelous outpouring of unity, oneness, and agreement in council. This session continued for somewhat more than two hours. Then President Kimball suggested that we unite in formal prayer and said, modestly, that if it was agreeable with the rest of us he would act as voice.

Brethren Unite in Prayer

It was during that prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fulness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord.

President Kimball's prayer was answered and our prayers were answered. He heard the voice and we heard the same voice. All doubt and uncertainty fled. He knew the answer and we knew the answer. And we are all living witnesses of the truthfulness of the word so graciously sent from heaven.

Ancient Curse Removed

The ancient curse is no more. The seed of Cain and Ham and Canaan and Egyptus and Pharaoh (Abr. 1:20-27; Moses 5:16-41; 7:8, 22) —all these now have power to rise up and bless Abraham as their father. All these, Gentile in lineage, may now come and inherit by adoption all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Rom. 8:14-24; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1938], pp. 149-50). All these may now be numbered with those in the one fold of the one shepherd who is Lord of all.

A Powerful Witness

In the days that followed the receipt of the new revelation, President Kimball and President Ezra Taft Benson—the senior and most spiritually experienced ones among us—both said, expressing the feelings of us all, that neither of them had ever experienced anything of such spiritual magnitude and power as was poured out upon the Presidency and the Twelve that day in the upper room in the house of the Lord. And of it I say: I was there; I heard the voice: and the Lord be praised that it has come to pass in our day.

"All Are Alike unto God"

Not long after this revelation came, I was scheduled to address nearly a thousand seminary and institute teachers on a Book of Mormon subject. After I arrived on the stand, Brother Joe J. Christensen, under whose direction the symposium was going forward, asked me to depart from my prepared talk and give those assembled some guidance relative to the new revelation. He asked if I would take 2 Nephi 26:33 as a text. This I agreed to do, and, accordingly, spoke the following words:

I would like to say something about the new revelation relative to our taking the priesthood to those of all nations and races. "He [meaning Christ, who is the Lord God] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile" (2 Ne. 26:33).

These words have now taken on a new meaning. We have caught a new vision of their true significance. This also applies to a great number of other passages in the revelations. Since the Lord gave this revelation on the priesthood, our understanding of many passages has expanded. Many of us never imagined or supposed that they had the extensive and broad meaning that they do have.

I shall give you a few impressions relative to what has happened, and then attempt—if properly guided by the Spirit—to indicate to you the great significance that this event has in the Church, in the world, and where the rolling forth of the great gospel is concerned.

(Bruce R. McConkie, Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1998], 162.)

To impress the grave consequences and the seriousness of intermarriage as between those of different races and particularly with reference to intermarriage with the seed of Cain, President Brigham Young made this remark in an address before the legislature: ". . . that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the priesthood until the time of that redemption. Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the priesthood. . . ." (Wilford Woodruff, page 351.) Surely no one of you who is an heir to a body of more favored lineage would knowingly intermarry with a race that would condemn your posterity to penalties that have been placed upon the seed of Cain by the judgments of God.

(Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1973], 168.)

The seed of Cain has been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning, but they are the children of God. They may become Church members without the priesthood, but a promise of hope has been given by a prophet in our day in these words: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." (Quoted from President Brigham Young in Wilford Woodruff, p. 351.)

(Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1973], 167.)

(JST Genesis 7:29.)

29 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam, and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam, save it were the seed of Cain; for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

(Moses 7:22.)

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

(Abraham 1:26-27.)

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

THE SEED OF CAIN HAD TO BE PRESERVED

Could it not be said of Ham that he was righteous in that he followed his father into the Ark? The seed of Cain had to be preserved, and Cain was chosen for that mission. It is very possible that Ham received his name due to the fact that he married a black woman. We learn that the names of many individuals in those early years were given them—and often changed—due to incidents which occurred in their lives. For example, Esau's name was changed to Edom, and Jacob's name to Israel, and Abraham was at first known as Abram. It is likely that Ham's name was changed because he had a black wife, for ham is an adjective in Egyptian for black. The name Egyptus means forbidden. (Abraham 1:23.) Is it not reasonable to believe that this has reference to the fact that her descendants, as well as her ancestors, were denied some great blessing? And that that great blessing was denial of the priesthood?

We are informed that the right to the priesthood was denied Pharaoh, and this is in full accord with the attitude of Enoch and others before the flood. Then is it not reasonable to think that Ham named one of his sons Caanan after Cain? We may not be justified in declaring that the daughters of Ham were fair before the flood. We have no evidence that Ham had either sons or daughters before the flood. We have no evidence that it was the sons and daughters of any of the sons who entered the Ark who received the condemnation of the Lord. It could have been sons and daughters of other sons who refused to hearken to their father, and to the sons who rebelled, there may have been daughters who were fair. In fact, this is the plain implication of the scriptures.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 2: 176.)

NEGROES MAY ENJOY CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

In the matter of religion they also may choose any faith they please. The Church does not bar them from membership, and we have members of the Negro race in the Church. If a Negro is baptized and remains true and loyal, he will enter the celestial kingdom, but it is not the authorities of the Church who have placed a restriction on him regarding the holding of the priesthood. It was not the Prophet Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young. It was the Lord! If a Negro desires to join the Church, we will give him all the encouragement that we can, but we cannot promise him that he will receive the priesthood.

Let us reason together. In the Book of Moses, Chapter 4, and in the Book of Abraham, Chapter 3, we are taught that there was a council held in heaven and our Eternal Father presented a plan by which we could come down on the earth and receive tabernacles (bodies) of flesh and bones for our spirits which are begotten sons and daughters unto God. We learn also that one third of those spirits rebelled against the plan and followed Satan. For this they were denied bodies of flesh and bones and have to remain spirits. Why do not those who complain about the Negro and the priesthood also complain about the punishment which was given to this third of the spirits? They were denied even the blessings of bodies! Was this an injustice on the part of our Eternal Father? Well, there were other spirits there who were not faithful in the keeping of this first estate. (Abraham 3:23-28.) Yet they have not sinned away their right to receive bodies and come to earth and receive the resurrection. They were restricted in the privileges that were given to those who keep their first estate and who were promised to have "glory added upon their heads for ever and ever." (Ibid., 3:26.) Therefore the Lord prepared a way through the lineage of Cain for these spirits to come to the earth, but under the restriction of priesthood.

RESTRICTION OF PRIESTHOOD

Let me call your attention to the following passages from the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price:

And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan;

For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent;

And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it were the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them. (Moses 7:7, 8, 12, 22.)

And from the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price:

Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden.

When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the priesthood. Now Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry. (Abraham 1:21-27.)

OTHER REASONS WHY NEGRO CANNOT HOLD PRIESTHOOD

Kindly see chapters 15 and 16, in The Way to Perfection, for further light in relation to the reason why the Negro cannot receive the priesthood. In brief, it is as follows: Because of transgression in the first estate which deprives him in this second estate. Since Cain slew his brother Abel in order to obtain all the rights of priesthood to descend through his lineage, the Lord decreed that the children of Cain should not have the privilege of bearing the priesthood until Abel had posterity who could have the priesthood and that will have to be in the far distant future. When this is accomplished on some other world, then the restrictions will be removed from the children of Cain who have been true in this "second" estate.

We can well imagine that there will be many, after the resurrection, both men and women, who will be assigned to the telestial, and the terrestrial kingdoms, and that there will be many who will complain and accuse our Heavenly Father of injustice because he will deprive so many of his children of the exaltation. We may well believe that the cry will go forth from some that God is unjust because he has restricted so many from receiving the blessings of the priesthood and placed them in these kingdoms notwithstanding they are judged according to their works.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 2: 187.)

Now perhaps you will have a partial answer to some of your questions as to why, if God is a just Father, that some of his children are born of an enlightened race and in a time when the Gospel is upon the earth, while others are born of a heathen parentage in a benighted, backward country; and still others are born to parents who have the mark of a black skin with which the seed of Cain were cursed and whose descendants were to be denied the rights of the priesthood of God.

(Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1973], 164 - 165.)

Noah's Curse Upon Canaan.—Part of the curse that fell upon Canaan was "a blackness," which came upon all his posterity, causing them to be "despised among all people" (Moses 7:8)—a blackness similar to that which had been placed upon the "seed of Cain" (Moses 7:22). The curse also deprived the Canaanites of the priesthood.—(Abraham 1:26.)

(Orson F. Whitney, Gospel Themes [salt Lake City: n.p., 1914], 107.)

Since all righteous or worthy male members not of the blood of Cain may hold the priesthood, this organization is capable of infinite enlargement by helpers as may be needed.

(John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith--Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951], 126.)

The Curse upon Canaan.—Part of the curse upon Canaan was "a blackness," similar to that which had been placed upon "the seed of Cain." fn The curse also deprived the Canaanites of the Priesthood; though they were blessed "with the blessings of the earth and with the blessings of wisdom." fn

Ham's sin, which brought the curse upon Canaan—a sin vaguely hinted at in the sacred narrative—may not be fully known; but even if it were, there would still remain the unsolved problem of the punishment of a whole race for an offense committeed by one of its ancestors. It seems reasonable to infer that there was a larger cause, that the sin in question was not the main issue. Tradition has handed down something to that effect, but nothing conclusive of the question is to be found in the standard works of the Church. Of one thing we may rest assured: Canaan was not unjustly cursed, nor were the spirits who came through his lineage wrongly assigned. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Or, putting it inversely: Whatsoever a man reaps, that hath he sown. This rule applies to spirit life, as well as to life in the flesh.

(Orson F. Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts [salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1921], 120.)

[selek]

Out of morbid curiousity, from whence did you cut and paste this essay?

[pam]

Also I'm concerned that many of this copy and paste may be copyrighted.

[skippy740]

Draw your own conclusions. All are from prophets or apostles.

What do you mean by this? The "conclusion" has already been made and has been revealed.

[NoGreaterLove]

All references have been provided. You may look them up if you wish.

[NoGreaterLove]

What do you mean by this? The "conclusion" has already been made and has been revealed.

And what would that be? It seems we have disparaging beliefs (on this forum) on this subject. So what conclusion have you come to by studying what the prophets and apostles have taught?

Edited September 12, 2011 by NoGreaterLove

[MarginOfError]

All references have been provided. You may look them up if you wish.

Any chance you could reformat the references to APA format?

Edited September 12, 2011 by MarginOfError

[NoGreaterLove]

Any chance you could reformat the references to APA format?

sounds like you are writing a psychology paper. You are on you own on that, but you are welcome to copy, paste and reorganize it yourself if you would like.

[Vort]

sounds like you are writing a psychology paper. You are on you own on that, but you are welcome to copy, paste and reorganize it yourself if you would like.

Someone's TICmeter needs maintenance.

[Guest mysticmorini]

Onto a related question, why do they call it a "tongue in cheek" comment when you cant make a comment with your tongue in your cheek?

[Vort]

Onto a related question, why do they call it a "tongue in cheek" comment when you cant make a comment with your tongue in your cheek?

Hmmm. Did you perhaps mean "an unrelated question"?

[Guest mysticmorini]

perhaps, all the same I am pretty sure you cant talk with your tongue in your cheek.

[skippy740]

And what would that be? It seems we have disparaging beliefs (on this forum) on this subject. So what conclusion have you come to by studying what the prophets and apostles have taught?

Click on my signature link.

Lesson Outline For Teachers | BlacksInTheScriptures.com

Oh, and this one:

“All Are Alike unto God” - Bruce R. McConkie

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.”

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality.

I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet.

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept.

We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet - Liahona June 1981 - liahona

Especially:

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray. [from the teachings and saving doctrines needed to return us to the Father]

If you have trouble believing these statements, then you have a testimony issue about accepting modern-day revelation that can 'trump' previous 'revelation' or statements.

[Suzie]

And my favorite thread in the forum that discuss this issue:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36633-issues-brigham-young.html

[SteveVH]

If you don't mind some observations from an outsider, this issue, as well as the issue of polygamy, appear to non-Mormons to indicate that one cannot really trust "revelation" within the LDS Church as it might change tomorrow. It comes down to what we believe about "revelation" itself. From many people's perspective, if revelation is believed to be the truth of God, then it should never change. I am trying to think of any "revelation" in the Bible that did an about face later on and nothing comes to mind. It comes down to the principal that truth cannot conflict with truth and that truth is not relative, but constant.

Either blacks were cursed, or they were not. Either polygamy was God's plan or it wasn't.

The timing of each of these "changes" in revelation also makes these changes suspect to a non-Mormon. The position on Polygamy changed just at the same time that Utah was fighting for statehood. The position on blacks in the preisthood occurred in the face of being labled racists.

How do you, as Mormons, reconcile these issues? How do you know what is true and if your prophets are really prophets when faced with these questions? I have no intention of using this as an anti-Mormon whipping post. I am really interested in learning the Mormon justification.

Thank you in advance.

[JudoMinja]

Personally, I believe the two issues are opposites:

The Priesthood ban was in place simply because the Priesthood was not ready to be extended to all men. All the speculations about why blacks were banned from receiving the Priesthood were just that, speculation. It was never revealed to any of the prophets a reason behind the ban, just that the ban was to remain in place for a time, and was eventually lifted. Now, it is granted to "every worthy male member". You look at that phrase and you can see that there are STILL restrictions on the Priesthood, they are just far less than what they used to be.

The idea of a ban on the Priesthood is not a foreign one, as the Priests of Levi in the time of Moses were the only ones granted that power. It is also seen in the same light as that the gospel was not preached unto the Gentiles until Paul was given the go ahead. Before then, it was given only to the Jews. Same concept.

Polygamy is something at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from the Priesthood ban. This is something we were given and had pulled back. Again, we can reference Moses- when the Isrealites were traveling through the desert they were given a great portion of the Lord's word, and when they proved themselves unready to live by it, it was pulled back. They were held to the Law of Moses because they were not ready for the "higher" law, but that law was given to us when Christ came for His earthly ministry- a time when we were collectively "ready" for it. This is something we also reference when talking about the law of consecration. This law was given to the early Saints, but they were not ready for it, and it was pulled back.

We can also see, from the Bible, that polygamy is something that has been allowed for specific circumstances. Several prophets in the Bible had multiple wives, and in some instances this was deemed a good thing in the eyes of God and in other instances it wasn't. It is a familial practice that, I think, was discontinued for the combination of reasons- 1. that we are not "ready" to live by it and 2. it is not necessary for this time.

All of the above is my personal reasoning on the matters, and not everyone of the LDS faith agrees with my reasoning. But, I think, that this adequately addressing your question as to how Mormon's justify the "changing" of God's word.

The truth Is constant, but we are expected to live up to the truths we have been given-

D&C 82:3 "For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation."

SO, the Lord will not give us more truth than we are ready for. He gives it to us in gradual pieces that may seem contradictory when we receive something new. Those who were living by the Law of Moses thought Christ was blasphemous in many of the things He did and said, but He was doing nothing more than adding unto the doctrine and law they had previously been given. When something is given and pulled back, it is like a little "sneak peek" of what will be required of us next, after we have mastered what we've already been given.

[RMGuy]

Just as a point of factual reference I think we should remember that there where African-Americans or "Blacks" who held the priesthood and served in leadership positions throughout the Kirtland period and into the Nauvoo time frame. Brigham Young did not codify the prohibition against priesthood ordination until after the exodus to the west. At the time of that ratification he was not sustained as President of the Church but was sustained as The President of the Quorum of the 12.

-RM

[Spartan117]

Just as a point of factual reference I think we should remember that there where African-Americans or "Blacks" who held the priesthood and served in leadership positions throughout the Kirtland period and into the Nauvoo time frame. Brigham Young did not codify the prohibition against priesthood ordination until after the exodus to the west. At the time of that ratification he was not sustained as President of the Church but was sustained as The President of the Quorum of the 12.

-RM

Is your question about revelation in general, such as the priesthood ban? Or about the ban specifically?

Was the gospel taught to the Gentiles at first? Or was that something that was changed later on? Why would the Lord tell his apostles to bring the gospel to certain groups but not others? Why would he withhold the priesthood from some, and not others? Why won't he tell us why? Why were some in the OT allowed plural wives, and some not? Why was polygamy allowed during the pioneer days of the LDS Church (and even then, roughly 15%-20% of men were given permission by the prophet to take multiple wives) and then forbidden?

I see your point but the idea that what happened with polygamy and the priesthood ban is an example not found in the Bible and is exclusive to the LDS Church is simply not true. Everything prophesied, everything promised, everything that is covenanted, is and always has been conditional upon us. We have agency. Even President Monson tells of a time when he was a bishop and was clearly prompted by the Holy Ghost to go to the hospital where a member of his ward was very ill, but he was in a meeting and ignored the prompting. By the time he got there, the member had passed away. We are the ones who set the stage, our choices. The sons of perdition defied Heavenly Father, in his presence! Right in front of Him, in His kingdom, followed Satan and rejected Him and His Son! They messed up so bad they didn't even get bodies! Joseph Smith lost the ability to translate the Book of Mormon because he asked God, several times, if he could lend out those 116 pages. The Lord said no, repeatedly. Joseph made the choice to do what he wanted anyway. He had the ability to translate, then by his own doing, had that taken away. When the Lord called Moses to be a prophet, did He tell Moses that Aaron would be his mouthpiece? Was that the original plan? Or was that something that became conditional on Moses?

Edited September 14, 2011 by Spartan117

[RMGuy]

Spartan,

Not sure about the purpose of your response. Mine was aimed more at Judo, since we can see that the ban wasn't something that was in place during the Kirtland period. Why that is the case isn't something that I have spent a lot of time with, but I think that many members of the church beleive that the ban was always in place since the time of Cain until 1978, which is clearly not the case. African-American's were ordained during the Kirtland and Nauvoo period and participated in temple ordinances during the late Nauvoo period as well.

Your post reads like it is more of a response to StephenVH than to mine, since I never mentioned polygamy. So not sure exactly why you quoted my post?

-RM

[Spartan117]

Your post reads like it is more of a response to StephenVH than to mine

It sure was

I was responding to 2 different threads and got some things mixed up. My bad.

[RMGuy]

No problem. :-)

-RM

[SteveVH]

Thanks to all who responded to my question. I was looking for the Mormon view here and feel satisfied that I have received it.

God bless you.

[dahlia]

Any chance you could reformat the references to APA format?

You devil, you!

[dahlia]

Just as a point of factual reference I think we should remember that there where African-Americans or "Blacks" who held the priesthood and served in leadership positions throughout the Kirtland period and into the Nauvoo time frame.

You can say 'black,' it's OK.

I use black all the time when I write - that includes writing for journals. I abhor hyphenated American anything. I was born here. So were my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. I'm an American.

[bytor2112]

You can say 'black,' it's OK.

I use black all the time when I write - that includes writing for journals. I abhor hyphenated American anything. I was born here. So were my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. I'm an American.

My best friend is African-American....and he is white. I hate trying to categorize people....