Racisim in Scripture

[Timpman]

So I said "Regardless of what our modern prophets say, we can't cover up the past. We need to address it head on. It is what it is." I probably could have used better words. I was thinking of teachings of love and equality and the 1978 revelation regarding the Priesthood. I meant that we have to acknowledge that black men could not have the Priesthood in the past and that the Lamanites were given dark skin, etc. I was worried that if we try to change the meaning of scriptures or erase history, we would rightfully be viewed as intellectually dishonest and it would hurt our cause.

I confess that I do feel a bit shameful about some things. I wonder if Elder McConkie felt that when he said, “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation."

It really would be easier being a Mormon if we didn't have such controversial issues to deal with. But this is God's Church!

Edited April 4, 2012 by Timpman

[skippy740]

Black men DID hold the priesthood in the past! Ordained by the Prophet Joseph himself - Elijah Abel, his son and his grandson (also named Elijah Abel).

Interesting, isn't it?

Elijah Abel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were others. Green Flake as well.

Green Flake?Black Pioneer - Liahona June 1989 - liahona

Green Flake | Blacklds.org

This is a topic that is full of landmines.

The Official Declaration 2 is the official declaration... not the revelation. The revelation had to help correct past teachings and interpretations. The Lord didn't simply say "It's okay now" without helping to correct their understanding. That sounds more like a "politically correct" motive than a doctrinal one.

D&C 1:24-28

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

William McCary had quite a bit to do with the priesthood ban.

William McCary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Walker Lewis - another great Black LDS Pioneer:

Walker Lewis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just adding additional thoughts to the subject.

Edited April 4, 2012 by skippy740

[Timpman]

Black men DID hold the priesthood in the past! Ordained by. the Prophet Joseph himself - Elijah Abel, his son and his grandson (also named Elijah Abel).

Yes, that is interesting. I knew about the first Elijah Abel, but not his grandson. After those FEW men were ordained, black men could not hold the Priesthood, though. I think you just need to accept it as fact and quit trying to soften it.

[skippy740]

I understand the facts... but I don't understand the practice being defined as doctrine.

I have not yet seen any revelation regarding blacks being unable to hold the priesthood.

President David O. Mckay of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was quoted Wednesday as saying as early as 1954 that “There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse.”

Dr. Sterling M. McMurrin, former U.S. Commissioner of Education and now E. E. Ericksen Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and dean of the Graduate School at the University of Utah, recalled a conversation in which President McKay also said, “As a matter of fact, there is no doctrine in this church whatsoever that pertains to the Negroes.”

If we're using these scriptures to justify the priesthood ban, and then their meanings were made clearer through revelation... then the scriptures didn't mean what people thought they meant.

[Suzie]

Yes, that is interesting. I knew about the first Elijah Abel, but not his grandson. After those FEW men were ordained, black men could not hold the Priesthood, though. I think you just need to accept it as fact and quit trying to soften it.

You may be interested in this thread:

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

We discussed the ban, there are several quotes including one of President Kimball as an Apostle hinting a "possible" mistake in the placement of the ban as well somewhere in that thread.

[Timpman]

If we're using these scriptures to justify the priesthood ban, and then their meanings were made clearer through revelation... then the scriptures didn't mean what people thought they meant.

I'm not using anything to try to justify the ban. The ban was a veritable reality. Yes, it was a policy, but that doesn't make any less real. Though it's difficult to find the beginning and source of the ban, Brigham Young apparently was willing to accept responsibility for it. He said "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it" (Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833–1898).

We discussed the ban, there are several quotes including one of President Kimball as an Apostle hinting a "possible" mistake in the placement of the ban as well somewhere in that thread.

This is actually was is shaking my faith a bit. It's really, really sad that the whole thing could have been a monumental, 100-year mistake. Thought it was hinted that it could be a mistake, it was said over and over again to be from the Lord. It must have been from the Lord or it was was HUGE mistake.

[Vort]

It must have been from the Lord or it was was HUGE mistake.

I don't follow your reasoning. Assuming the worst -- that the Lord never instituted the ban on African blacks receiving Priesthood and temple blessings, but it was an interpolation done wrongly and ignorantly by prophets who held unfortunate attitudes -- how is this a HUGE mistake? Was anyone denied salvation? Do you really believe God to be that hidebound?

In the primitive Church, gentiles were denied entrance until they became Jewish proselytes, complete with genital amputations. Was this, too, a HUGE mistake? Or was it simply the Church leadership of the time struggling to implement the gospel in an environment they did not understand well enough?

Perhaps you think it's HUGE because it suggests the supposed "prophets" of the LDS Church were (and, by extension, are) nothing of the sort. In that case, the HUGE problem is lack of testimony, not historical interpretation.

I personally believe that the so-called "Priesthood ban" was approved by God. I do not pretend to know his reasons. Perhaps he instituted it, or perhaps he just allowed it. In any case, it has been almost 34 years since it was done away with. Breast-beating about it now can do no good. Picking at ancient scabs does not make the scars go away.

[Timpman]

In 1949, George Albert Smith’s administration began sending out a consistent statement in response to inquiries. It followed the pattern set in earlier private correspondence by the First Presidency and by David O. McKay, who had been a counselor in the First Presidency since 1934: “It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes . . . are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time,” based on “some eternal law with which man is yet unfamiliar” and by which men’s place and condition of birth and rights to priesthood must be explained; accordingly, “the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality.” The statement went beyond the evidence both in claiming a “direct commandment” from the Lord and in saying that the doctrine came “from the days of [the Church’s] organization.”

When McKay became Church President in April 1951, he continued to respond to queries with this same statement.

President Kimball said:

The conferring of priesthood, and declining to give the priesthood is not a matter of my choice nor of President McKay’s. It is the Lord’s program. . . . When the Lord is ready to relax the restriction, it will come whether there is pressure or not. This is my faith. Until then, I shall try to fight on. . . . I have always prided myself on being about as unprejudiced as to race as any man. I think my work with the minorities would prove that, but I am so completely convinced that the prophets know what they are doing and the Lord knows what he is doing, that I am willing to rest it there.

Both quotes from https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf

I am trying to understand all of this more. I am in the middle of that essay.

[estradling75]

In my opinion even if it started with a man the moment the Lord confirmed it the Lord owned it... And between the time it started and the time it ended I am positive the Lord got asked about it many, many times.

For me I have no problem believing that it was both. I believe it was of God, adapted by God for the weakness of his saints. Once we became able to bare it (and I mean collectively as a group, as a society, as a culture, not individually) it became time for it to be removed and it was.

[Timpman]

In my opinion even if it started with a man the moment the Lord confirmed it the Lord owned it... And between the time it started and the time it ended I am positive the Lord got asked about it many, many times.

For me I have no problem believing that it was both. I believe it was of God, adapted by God for the weakness of his saints. Once we became able to bare it (and I mean collectively as a group, as a society, as a culture, not individually) it became time for it to be removed and it was.

Very, very well said!

Here' more from Edward L. Kimball's essay:

President McKay sometimes said in private conversations that the restriction on priesthood was not a doctrine but was a policy and subject to change. Although one might assume that this “policy rather than doctrine” distinction would make change easy, President McKay himself apparently meant only that the rule or practice was not established by direct revelation. He did not mean that change could come by the simple administrative decision of Church leaders. He maintained the position that the long-established policy was inspired and that change would require divine intervention. President McKay desired and sought such revelation, but he did not receive it. He told Elder Marion D. Hanks that “he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord but had not had the answer he sought.”

[skippy740]

I'm not using anything to try to justify the ban. The ban was a veritable reality. Yes, it was a policy, but that doesn't make any less real. Though it's difficult to find the beginning and source of the ban, Brigham Young apparently was willing to accept responsibility for it. He said "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it" (Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833–1898).

This is actually was is shaking my faith a bit. It's really, really sad that the whole thing could have been a monumental, 100-year mistake. Thought it was hinted that it could be a mistake, it was said over and over again to be from the Lord. It must have been from the Lord or it was was HUGE mistake.

I offer this as another reinforcement resource:

Amazon.com: Shaken Faith Syndrome. Strengthening One's Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt (9781893036086): Michael R. Ash: Books

You see, I cannot take someone down this path and just "leave them there". Faith must be upheld.

I was at a Marvin Perkins fireside where he lectures on all of this. He actually said something quite interesting: "All of this proves that the church is true."

Huh?

First, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon... not wrote it. If he had WRITTEN it, it would have been the work of a man trying to imitate scripture. A false book written with the attitudes of the time may have some references to old traditions and beliefs about skin color.

Second, the whole notion of races and defining them by color (black, white, red, yellow, etc.) was a notion of the 1600's. The only book of scripture written AFTER the 1600's was the Doctrine & Covenants. The Doctrine & Covenants has ZERO references to skin color or races.

Pretty incredible considering the knowledge and attitudes of most people of the era (early 1800's).

If you look earlier in the thread (because of the forum time clock error, it posted before my later postings), there are statements regarding infallability of LDS leaders.

I think there is a notion of how much divine intervention the Prophet of the church has with the Lord. We know that the First Presidency and the Quorum of 12 meet every Thursday night at the Salt Lake Temple. Some members believe (and I hear it from one EQ instructor) that the Lord has direct communication with our Prophet on a regular basis... at least that is what is implied.

If this was the case, why did it take so much pondering, study, and anguish on the part of Spencer W. Kimball to get the revelation that he got? You'll see how he had is 'wrestle with the Lord' to find out HIS will on the matter.

Our leaders are not perfect. We have a culture within the LDS church that if a past leader says something, we are not so quick to discount it.

One of the tenants of the 14 principles of following the prophet is:

A living prophet is more important than a dead prophet.

One of the other issues on this topic is this: Why hasn't there been any kind of doctrine clarification on this issue? I think it's coming. But the general membership isn't ready to hear it.

I think Elder D. Todd Christofferson did a great job in General Conference to lay additional foundation to exposing this and to help the Saints gain greater understanding and clarification on this issue.

Something else Marvin Perkins said was this: "If it wasn't this issue, it would be something else."

So, how can we say that this is the TRUE church of Christ? Well, true doesn't mean "always right".

What if 'true' was a verb, instead of a noun?

Bring (an object, wheel, or other construction) into the exact shape, alignment, or position required.

We are continuously bringing ourselves into alignment with the Lord's will and His commandments.

[skippy740]

I personally believe that the so-called "Priesthood ban" was approved by God. I do not pretend to know his reasons. Perhaps he instituted it, or perhaps he just allowed it. In any case, it has been almost 34 years since it was done away with. Breast-beating about it now can do no good. Picking at ancient scabs does not make the scars go away.

I agree that we don't need to 'brow-beat' it.

But those of African descent are dealing with this on a regular basis. THEIR testimony is at risk... because they have questions about the Church's past... and most members don't have the answers.

At the same fireside, Marvin Perkins was explaining how we was doing some research on this issue (in the late 1980's) and was asking the members "Am I cursed?"

They lovingly said "Yes, you are cursed."

This can have a big issue on those who are investigating our faith. Yes, it is no longer a policy or practice. But those who are NOT of our faith will still use these words as statements against us.

Take this video for example. I use this because it's not 'anti-lds'. It is a heartfelt message to black mormons asking them to consider WHY they are investigating or belong to our faith.

This video is an example of the pressure that Black LDS investigators and members face from family, friends and previous church pastors and ministers.

A Message For Black Mormons - YouTube

This issue is VERY much alive and real to those who will have to deal with this - before baptism or after baptism. Sometimes MANY years after baptism.

And if we are not prepared to help them bolster their faith, they will fall away due to confusion.

If members are prepared with "oil in their lamps" and can use the scriptures to help others gain greater understanding... they are able to bolster faith, be encouraging and answer the difficult questions.

I would strongly encourage clicking on the link below and obtaining a copy of Blacks in the Scriptures DVD set. No, it's not an official site. I know that the first section "Blacks in the Bible" has been approved by the Church Education System (CES). We have sent copies to the First Presidency and various members of the Qof12. I mention this NOT to imply endorsement (because they haven't 'endorsed' it) but they have NOT DISCOURAGED this.

Let the spirit and the scriptures guide you.

(When I have time, I may try to upload the video segments to YouTube... but I'd have to "slice and dice" the longer video segment into 10-15 minute segments... and I don't have time to do that just yet. Even Marvin has said that anyone can 'pirate' this as much as they want - his only goal is to get the information out there.)

Edited April 4, 2012 by skippy740

[Suzie]

I would also (if I may) recommend Margaret's and Darius work "Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons" available online in the Documentary Channel:

DocumentaryChannel

[skippy740]

I am uploading Blacks in the Scriptures to YouTube as we speak. It's taking a long time (using a wireless broadband connection), but I should have section 2 (Skin Color and Curses) uploaded in a couple of hours from now.

[Timpman]

I don't follow your reasoning. Assuming the worst -- that the Lord never instituted the ban on African blacks receiving Priesthood and temple blessings, but it was an interpolation done wrongly and ignorantly by prophets who held unfortunate attitudes -- how is this a HUGE mistake?

If it were not from the Lord, it would have been a mistake. It would be very unfortunate. It was, however, from the Lord.

So I wrote "This is actually was is shaking my faith a bit," which should really be "This is actually shaking my faith a bit." I just finished reading the whole essay by Edward L. Kimball, though, and I am okay now. I am actually joyful because my testimony has been strengthened. Some parts were awesome:

At lunchtime, Heber Wolsey went home to share the news with his wife, Fay. She said she had received a call from his office and “when you get back to your office you’re going to have a surprise.” Heber recounts:

On returning to the office, I opened the door and saw Darius Gray [a black LDS businessman and good friend] looking fondly out the window at the Salt Lake Temple. He rushed to me, and we threw our arms around each other and wept for gratitude and joy. When we regained a little composure, I whispered, “I never thought . . .”

“I always knew,” said Darius. “I just didn’t know if it would happen on this side of the veil.”

“. . . in our lifetime!”

Darius looked at me, then out the window at the temple, and then at me again. He closed his eyes, opened them slowly, and said softly, “God is good.”

Mary Frances Sturlaugson, a young black woman, recorded that in a downtown office a friend told her the news. She said, “Please don’t joke with me about something like that.”

At that instant a young man who had been talking on the phone stood up and, with his fists stretched above his head, shouted, “All right!”

Cold chills went completely through my body. All I could say was, “I don’t believe it’s happened.” An older man beside me kept repeating, “I’ll be darned, I’ll be darned.”

As I walked outside, crying like a happy kid at Christmastime, horns were honking like crazy. I stopped for a red light and a car pulled up. The driver asked me if I had heard what he had just heard. I half mumbled and half nodded a disbelieving yes. He whooped and started blowing his horn as he drove off. When I arrived at my apartment my roommates ran out to meet me, and we jumped up and down screaming with joy. Finally we went inside and each said a prayer, sobs punctuating every one.

That last one made me cry (a manly cry).

[pam]

I am uploading Blacks in the Scriptures to YouTube as we speak. It's taking a long time (using a wireless broadband connection), but I should have section 2 (Skin Color and Curses) uploaded in a couple of hours from now.

I paid for it and now you are uploading it for free?

[skippy740]

I paid for it and now you are uploading it for free?

LOL!

Well, I'm finding a few things about myself:

1) Not everyone is understanding what I'm writing. I'm usually pretty clear, but this thread didn't go as smoothly as other threads I've posted on this subject.

2) I feel committed to each thread that I'm writing about this in... and I can't just "let it go"... so my time is a consideration. You can't lead someone down this path without being able to build up their faith.

3) There's a war going on for the heart and soul of men... and there's only 40+ AAOP coordinators out there giving local lessons on this topic. Personally, this information needs to "flood the earth" to help turn the image of the church and educate the members.

4) I can't communicate it very well in text. I think video instruction for those who are willing to sit down and watch it... is a much better way to win over hearts and feel the spirit.

5) At a baptism, Marvin Perkins actually said that he didn't care about anyone 'pirating' this information. He just wants to "get it out there"... so I take that as 100% permission to go ahead and upload it!

Maybe there's a spirit of 'unrest' about this with me until I just 'did it'.

Enjoy it!

Edited April 5, 2012 by skippy740

[Guest kyolive]

we are standing new york asian escort At the same time new york asian escorts if we can seize the opportunities, face the challenges new york escort cooperate and compete new york escorts century belongs to him