Edward Kimball Article on 1978 Revelation


Just_A_Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

That is the point. Joseph Smith did not deny the Priesthood to Africans. . .

Given Elijah Abel as well as Messrs Walker, McCary, etc., I'm inclined to agree with you.

It seems to me that it was a policy put into place without revelation.

I'm not sure we can go that far. There are any number of explanations - the racism of surrounding Americans and even among the Church itself being the elephant in the rhetorical room - as to why the exclusion may have been a pragmatically necessary policy for the Church at a particular point in time. The fact that God probably wishes a policy were not necessary, does not mean He will not approve and perhaps even mandate such a policy if it generally tends to advance the welfare of the Kingdom. (Exhibit A: the current moratorium on doing temple work for holocaust victims.)

I think we should be particularly careful about such statements in light of the fact that the ultra-liberal wing of the Church essentially trying to make the Bott kerfluffle--and the priesthood ban generally--a sort of surrogate war in the dispute over the Church's stance regarding the sinfulness of homosexual relationships.

Personally, I believe God was just as involved as declaring that blacks could not hold the priesthood as he was in declaring that menstruating women are too unclean to be full participants in worship.

Well--anciently, under Mosaic code, He seems to have done just that. ;) As for modern days: I presume you're alluding to the scattershot policy of some temples in excluding menstruating women from doing proxy baptisms. That being the case, I'd find your point more convincing if that policy had also been a) embraced by the Church-at-large and universally applied, and b) publicly and consistently defended by numerous prophets and apostles over a one hundred fifty year timespan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thought I was...

Seems - Used to make a statement or description of one's thoughts, feelings, or actions less assertive or forceful. (Merriam-Webster)

Exactly - my concern is that you operate on what seems rather than what is. My concern is your assumption that policy was made without revelation or influence by the Holy Ghost. -- which "seems" to be what you are doing :D

Yet President Kimball was the only Prophet to receive direct revelation concerning this question that became canonized...

Hmmmm - I am not sure where you are going with this .... the revelation to Pres. Kimball brought about actual "change" before there was any change in standard (or as you say "canonized) scripture. Many saw this so called change as a fulfillment of prophesy and not a change in anything to do with any change in doctrine - but rather the continuing of the restoration and preparation for the return of Christ.

I would compare this to other covenants like marriage. Activity before the covenant is given is a sin and can cause one to be outside of G-d's covenants - but once allowed according to the covenant - the previous sin becomes a commandment. The difference has to do with covenant and not what seems to be a good idea or fun at the time.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given Elijah Abel as well as Messrs Walker, McCary, etc., I'm inclined to agree with you.

I'm not sure we can go that far. There are any number of explanations - the racism of surrounding Americans and even among the Church itself being the elephant in the rhetorical room - as to why the exclusion may have been a pragmatically necessary policy for the Church at a particular point in time. The fact that God probably wishes a policy were not necessary, does not mean He will not approve and perhaps even mandate such a policy if it generally tends to advance the welfare of the Kingdom. (Exhibit A: the current moratorium on doing temple work for holocaust victims.)

There is no such moratorium. Members who are related to holocaust victims may still submit these names and do work for these members so long as they can show their relationship to the individual.

Well--anciently, under Mosaic code, He seems to have done just that. ;) As for modern days: I presume you're alluding to the scattershot policy of some temples in excluding menstruating women from doing proxy baptisms. That being the case, I'd find your point more convincing if that policy had also been a) embraced by the Church-at-large and universally applied, and b) publicly and consistently defended by numerous prophets and apostles over a one hundred fifty year timespan.

I'm not alluding to that at all. But I don't really care to type out my opinions again. If you'd like to see them in (somewhat) disorganized fashion, you're welcome to visit my rant (I mean blog).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly - my concern is that you operate on what seems rather than what is. My concern is your assumption that policy was made without revelation or influence by the Holy Ghost. -- which "seems" to be what you are doing :D

You on the other hand seem to be asserting that Brigham Young and other early prophets did receive revelation for the Church, that specifically withheld the blessings of the priesthood for worthy Africans. For which they did not feel the need to reveal as doctrine in a written format for canonization...

Or am I just misunderstanding you?

Hmmmm - I am not sure where you are going with this .... the revelation to Pres. Kimball brought about actual "change" before there was any change in standard (or as you say "canonized) scripture. Many saw this so called change as a fulfillment of prophesy and not a change in anything to do with any change in doctrine - but rather the continuing of the restoration and preparation for the return of Christ.

I would compare this to other covenants like marriage. Activity before the covenant is given is a sin and can cause one to be outside of G-d's covenants - but once allowed according to the covenant - the previous sin becomes a commandment. The difference has to do with covenant and not what seems to be a good idea or fun at the time.

The Traveler

I am unclear of your meaning...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nice thing about having prophets is that after God evaluates the righteousness and willingness of His people to do a covenant and how that covenant would affect them and the church, then He will tell a prophet how He wants it done and IF He wants it done.

What works in one time will not work in another. Tell a person during Jesus's time that women were to be equal in all things and partners to their spouses, that pork was great to eat but wine was not and I bet he would have been stoned for heresy.

Trust God that He has a plan for us, in our time, and we dont need to debate if a plan is good or bad or even if it should have been in place all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, there are two possible implications in this matter that are hard to understand. 1. I don't appreciate the significance of a curse being passed on to generations beyond the lifespan of the original insult. Is this somehow a retroactive punishment for the original sin of the person who is the "father (or mother)" of that lineage or does it have no significance to the original sinner who received the "curse"? In other words, why would Cain care who his great x100 grandson is who didn't get the priesthood because of Cain's actions and not the great x100 grandson's worthiness? He doesn't care for family anyways. Or, how is it possible that a curse that goes on generations affects the first in the lineage? ... To me this sounds like it was more risky to be one of the first to come to this earth if that is what we believe.

2. Can the form (i.e genetics, race etc.) of one's body affect their spiritual potential in this life or not? If a "curse" is based in genes, family lineage and the blessings of being born into a certain family allow for certain privileges then that seems to imply that we believe the limitations of one's body determines the potential for spirituality in this life and that limitation or potential can be passed by genes many generations down the road that would not be affected by first hand teaching or traditions. If an African decent baby was adopted by a white family, members of the church before 1978, that baby still would not be able to receive the priesthood because of the genetic make up, not teachings, traditions or background, right? ... Whether it was a direct revelation from God or not, the issue, for me, is the acceptance of the implication that the genetic make up of one's body can limit or promote spiritual behavior. Is there any limitation or promotion of spiritual behaviors based in genes alone, controlling for environment? What do we believe on that matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so a man who has just a drop of canaanite lineage could not hold the Priesthood.

Interesting.

Especially because IMO "canaanite" and "african" are not the same thing.

I think it's clear that between Black Pete & 19th century racism, the deed was done whether God wanted it to be or not. He often allows us our own choices.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not alluding to that at all. But I don't really care to type out my opinions again. If you'd like to see them in (somewhat) disorganized fashion, you're welcome to visit my rant (I mean blog).

No, I think "rant" is a better characterization. Your sneering condescension toward those Saints, early or modern, whose opinions differ from your own in this matter is unmistakeable.

If you are black or of black African descent, I give you a free pass. Otherwise, shame on you for your unrepentant judgmentalism and shameless disloyalty against both the members of God's kingdom and its leaders in generations past (not even considering the possibility that, just maybe, you are wrong). May you be judged by future generations with equal harshness.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

Well--anciently, under Mosaic code, He seems to have done just that. ;)

You misunderstand, JAG. That is exactly what he meant. MoE has decided he is the final arbiter of God's word, so naturally he gets to say which things were spoken of God and which things are just false traditions.

Link to comment

There is no such moratorium. Members who are related to holocaust victims may still submit these names and do work for these members so long as they can show their relationship to the individual.

Bottom line seems to be that holocaust victims who (by sheer stroke of fate) happen to have LDS family members alive in 2012, can receive the priesthood have their temple work done. Similarly, people of African ethnicity who (by sheer stroke of fate) happened to be members of the Church after June of 1978, can receive the priesthood and have their temple work done. Otherwise, members of these general groups are out of luck and must wait until such time as the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City chooses to bring them into the fold.

I have a hard time seeing how one can dismiss the latter policy as inherently contrary to any instruction God may have chosen to give to His church, while accepting the former as divinely approved. If God never approves of withholding priesthood ordinances from a particular minority group, then it seems me that the logical result is that you must reject the Church's instructions regarding proxy work for holocaust victims. Otherwise, the inexorable conclusion is that there is modern-day precedent for exactly the kind of (from our perspective) arbitrary discrimination that the priesthood ban allegedly represented. Assertions about how God would never act in contravention of 21st-century western ideals of racial equality in order to favor one group over another, suddenly become a lot less convincing; and divine origin for the priesthood ban policy remains a very real possibility.

It is true that it remains an inexplicable possibility and that we've been asked, more or less, not to speculate about possible rationales. Oddly, though, it seems that few are willing to apply this counsel to the theological liberals (who waste no time in attributing the whole thing to Brigham Young and John Taylor's racism, Zebedee Coltrin and Joseph F. Smith's dishonesty, David O. McKay's timidity, and Harold B. Lee's general churlishness) as well as to the conservatives.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line seems to be that holocaust victims who (by sheer stroke of fate) happen to have LDS family members alive in 2012, can receive the priesthood have their temple work done. Similarly, people of African ethnicity who (by sheer stroke of fate) happened to be members of the Church after June of 1978, can receive the priesthood and have their temple work done. Otherwise, members of these general groups are out of luck and must wait until such time as the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City chooses to bring them into the fold.

I have a hard time seeing how one can dismiss the latter policy as inherently contrary to any instruction God may have chosen to give to His church, while accepting the former as divinely approved. If God never approves of withholding priesthood ordinances from a particular minority group, then it seems me that the logical result is that you must reject the Church's instructions regarding proxy work for holocaust victims. Otherwise, the inexorable conclusion is that there is modern-day precedent for exactly the kind of thing that was done with the priesthood ban. Assertions about how God would never act in contravention of 21st-century western ideals of racial equality in order to favor one group over another, suddenly become a lot less convincing; and divine origin for the priesthood ban policy remains a very real (though currently inexplicable) possibility.

JAG, I appreciate your level-headedness and willingness to explain, with infinite patience, even very obvious things to the nth degree. You are my hero, and I'm trying to learn from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject: "The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine."

deseretnews.com mobile

Church Statement Regarding 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church - LDS Newsroom

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to type my whole opinion about this topic again so I am just putting a link with some of my thoughts about it (my long post)

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36633-issues-brigham-young-16.html

The whole thread is great if you guys want to read it, I am just linking a bit of it.

your post #157 is well put together.

thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You on the other hand seem to be asserting that Brigham Young and other early prophets did receive revelation for the Church, that specifically withheld the blessings of the priesthood for worthy Africans. For which they did not feel the need to reveal as doctrine in a written format for canonization...

Or am I just misunderstanding you?

I am unclear of your meaning...

Yes definitely you misunderstand me - we are bound by covenant - not by doctrine. (See D&C 84). Marriage is also a covenant. Intimate sexual relationship outside of the covenant is a sin but it is not a sin within the covenant.

The keys of the priesthood are held on earth only by one person - the order of the priesthood by covenant can only come through the presiding high priest. It is this order that you do not understand. It is interesting but Jesus could not enter into the inner chambers of the temple because he (despite his worthiness) did not hold the correct priesthood at the time. Zacharias on the other hand was of the correct order of the priesthood and could officiate at the inner chambers of the temple and it was not because he was more worthy.

A call to the priesthood is not always based on worthiness - despite the fact that a person must be worthy to be called - the calling is not of necessity to the "most worthy" or to all worthy. Therefore some are called to serve in one manner and others in other manners. But all that enter into the rest of the L-rd will obtain the priesthood. But to speculate why some are called to preside and some are called to be presided over - is not according to the oath and covenant of the priesthood.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, there are two possible implications in this matter that are hard to understand. 1. I don't appreciate the significance of a curse being passed on to generations beyond the lifespan of the original insult. Is this somehow a retroactive punishment for the original sin of the person who is the "father (or mother)" of that lineage or does it have no significance to the original sinner who received the "curse"? In other words, why would Cain care who his great x100 grandson is who didn't get the priesthood because of Cain's actions and not the great x100 grandson's worthiness? He doesn't care for family anyways. Or, how is it possible that a curse that goes on generations affects the first in the lineage? ... To me this sounds like it was more risky to be one of the first to come to this earth if that is what we believe.

2. Can the form (i.e genetics, race etc.) of one's body affect their spiritual potential in this life or not? If a "curse" is based in genes, family lineage and the blessings of being born into a certain family allow for certain privileges then that seems to imply that we believe the limitations of one's body determines the potential for spirituality in this life and that limitation or potential can be passed by genes many generations down the road that would not be affected by first hand teaching or traditions. If an African decent baby was adopted by a white family, members of the church before 1978, that baby still would not be able to receive the priesthood because of the genetic make up, not teachings, traditions or background, right? ... Whether it was a direct revelation from God or not, the issue, for me, is the acceptance of the implication that the genetic make up of one's body can limit or promote spiritual behavior. Is there any limitation or promotion of spiritual behaviors based in genes alone, controlling for environment? What do we believe on that matter?

The issue is covenant. There is an advantage to be born under the covenant - but there is also a disadvantage. All the advantages come from being subject to the covenant and all the disadvantages come from not being subject to the covenant. Finding reason to question being subject to the covenant puts one at disadvantage. Like making the covenant of marriage work - it is better to work together in marriage than it is for one or the other to be right but unable to work together.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes definitely you misunderstand me - we are bound by covenant - not by doctrine. (See D&C 84). Marriage is also a covenant. Intimate sexual relationship outside of the covenant is a sin but it is not a sin within the covenant.

The keys of the priesthood are held on earth only by one person - the order of the priesthood by covenant can only come through the presiding high priest. It is this order that you do not understand. It is interesting but Jesus could not enter into the inner chambers of the temple because he (despite his worthiness) did not hold the correct priesthood at the time. Zacharias on the other hand was of the correct order of the priesthood and could officiate at the inner chambers of the temple and it was not because he was more worthy.

A call to the priesthood is not always based on worthiness - despite the fact that a person must be worthy to be called - the calling is not of necessity to the "most worthy" or to all worthy. Therefore some are called to serve in one manner and others in other manners. But all that enter into the rest of the L-rd will obtain the priesthood. But to speculate why some are called to preside and some are called to be presided over - is not according to the oath and covenant of the priesthood.

The Traveler

revelance to this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think "rant" is a better characterization. Your sneering condescension toward those Saints, early or modern, whose opinions differ from your own in this matter is unmistakeable.

If you are black or of black African descent, I give you a free pass. Otherwise, shame on you for your unrepentant judgmentalism and shameless disloyalty against both the members of God's kingdom and its leaders in generations past (not even considering the possibility that, just maybe, you are wrong). May you be judged by future generations with equal harshness.

Look at that...I didn't even have to wait for future generations.

If any of my actions perpetuate racism and bigotry, I not only welcome judgment from future generations, but I consider it their duty to speak honestly of my mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

revelance to this thread?

Understanding the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood is necessary in order to understanding the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood. The priesthood is not empirical. Attempting to understand non-empirical "things" using exclusively empirical methods is an exercise in futility and stupidity.

For most of the history of mankind in mortality the priesthood has been patriarchal - the covenant and order of the priesthood is very connected to family which is by nature genetic. Also note that Jesus was only allowed to call into service to administer among those of the house of Israel. But he did prophesy that the time would come when the kingdom as well as the gospel would be taken to every nation, kindred, tongue and people.

The point is that we live in a time when we can rejoice in the priesthood finely being given as opportunity to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. I do not believe the best way to move forward in such understanding is in criticizing that what is no longer. If anyone is convinced that what was; was wrong, then I suggest that the attitude of forgiveness be utilized (not murmuring and criticizing) to unite with all those that are now rejoicing in welcoming all who covenant according to the covenant of the priesthood to join in this last effort to prepare a people for Christ to return.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any of my actions perpetuate racism and bigotry, I not only welcome judgment from future generations, but I consider it their duty to speak honestly of my mistakes.

I agree. It is indeed their duty to focus on your mistakes and weaknesses, and it is especially their duty to hold you to a social ethic that will not exist for another 50 or 100 years. Here's to hoping that you are judged as harshly by your descendants as you judge your ancestors.

On the other hand, I hope that my descendants judge me with respect to the social milieu in which I was raised and by the ethics I was taught, instead of by whatever they might happen to believe about things. And if they don't, then shame on them for holding me to a standard that does not even exist in my time.

I have little doubt that such people will live in the future. Such have lived in the past and (obviously) live now, so there is no reason to believe that these judgmental, condemnatory types will cease to exist any time soon. But in an extension of the Mother's Curse, their doom is -- or should be -- that their descendants, should they have any, speak of them exactly as they speak of past generations, in condescending and condemnatory terms.

Those who despise and speak ill of past generations should themselves be despised and spoken ill of by future generations. It's the other side of the Golden Rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is covenant. There is an advantage to be born under the covenant - but there is also a disadvantage. All the advantages come from being subject to the covenant and all the disadvantages come from not being subject to the covenant. Finding reason to question being subject to the covenant puts one at disadvantage. Like making the covenant of marriage work - it is better to work together in marriage than it is for one or the other to be right but unable to work together.

The Traveler

Thanks, I can appreciate this view. So, in your view, the curse or the blessing has nothing at all to do with any genetic resemblance of one generation to the next. In that light, I find it interesting that Abel and Seth looked like their father. It is interesting that Jesus is in the direct image of His father.

It seems that the scriptures try to play both sides of this issue, genetics is a factor versus it is not a factor as the covenant is the thing passed on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For most of the history of mankind in mortality the priesthood has been patriarchal - the covenant and order of the priesthood is very connected to family which is by nature genetic.

The Traveler

Well, I think that is a doctrinal question as to whether it really was family or genetic or both. If it is in any way genetic, that carries many implications. Even if it was in the past, the fact that there is a genetic component to this concept says a lot about our belief of the role of the body in our existence here. At least for me, that is the bigger picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It combined with my personal belief is sufficient for me...

I do not require it to be sufficient for you...

My conclusions are my own.

Then you are basing your conclusions on your own suppositions. Which is fine, and is entirely within your rights. But don't pretend your conclusions are based on evidence.

Do you believe that every comment that Brigham Young made was direct revelation from God? Have you read the Adam-God Theory?

What has this to do with the price of tea in China?

And yes Joseph Smith is a personal hero of mine.

Amen.

We don't pray to Joseph Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share