Church issues Race & Priesthood statement rejecting theories for past ban on Blacks in priesthood


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

JAG, I do not know who you refer to as "quite a few" but as a history junkie myself, I think it is imperative for people to remember both the pleasant and the unpleasant in history (not just LDS). We do it about slavery, we do it with 9/11, we do it with the Holocaust why not about this very sensitive topic?

Because many of the people who grind this axe the most, want us to believe that the Church is still perpetuating a form of "slavery" or "holocaust" vis a vis its position on the sinfulness of gay sex, or female priesthood ordinations, or whatever tickles their fancy. And to that end, they're willing to tell bald-faced lies about what the Church's recent statement on race says or doesn't say about the priesthood ban itself.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let me give you one small example. Gordon B. Hinckley as prophet said that those who give disparaging remarks about other races are not true disciples of Christ. Brigham gave those disparaging remarks. The Church teaches that the prophet cannot lead the Church astray. So which is it?

God's will was that it was okay to make disparaging remarks against blacks then but not now?

The prophet can lead the Church astray?

Brigham wasn't a prophet?

Gordon wasn't a prophet?

They both are not prophets?

Presiding High Priest doesn't equate to prophet?

Because it is apparent what the Church is trying to do here. The traditional history taught by the Church doesn't match up with reality unfortunately. The Church is trying to help contain the "Google Apostasy" which is alive and well. Only sound doctrine and truth will do that. Otherwise the Church must be prepared for people to continue to become dissatisfied and leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let me give you one small example. Gordon B. Hinckley as prophet said that those who give disparaging remarks about other races are not true disciples of Christ. Brigham gave those disparaging remarks. The Church teaches that the prophet cannot lead the Church astray. So which is it?

Which is what? I smell a false dichotomy brewing.

God's will was that it was okay to make disparaging remarks against blacks then but not now?

The prophet can lead the Church astray?

Brigham wasn't a prophet?

Gordon wasn't a prophet?

They both are not prophets?

Presiding High Priest doesn't equate to prophet?

No, no, no, no, no, and no. Sure enough, false dichotomies galore.

That Brigham Young may have said something that we know better than to say today is of no moment, except to those in apostasy and looking to cast aspersions on the Church.

Because it is apparent what the Church is trying to do here. The traditional history taught by the Church doesn't match up with reality unfortunately.

Wow. That's quite a charge: Institutional lying, deception, and dishonesty.

Surley with such a grave charge, you can provide a plethora of examples of the Church's dishonesty in deal with its history. Please do so.

And you have utterly failed to explain how the Church's communication disavows clear Book of Mormon doctrine. As you made the claim that it did, it is your duty to substantiate that assertion. Please do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let me give you one small example. Gordon B. Hinckley as prophet said that those who give disparaging remarks about other races are not true disciples of Christ. Brigham gave those disparaging remarks. The Church teaches that the prophet cannot lead the Church astray. So which is it?

An unnecessary dichotomy, as Vort suggests. Hinckley's comments in 2006 were clearly directed towards people of a particular time and place. Insensitivity and hatred are always inappropriate; but to suggest that Brigham Young or any other 19th century Mormon couldn't be a true disciple of Christ because of his repeated uses of the n-word is just silly.*

And (this is an observation on the general situation, not directed at you personally, Smeagums)--what an interesting world we live in, when someone who makes a thoughtless racial comment is no longer worthy of being called a "disciple of Christ" while those who openly denigrate our most sacred ordinances or shill for the latter-day Sodomites are defended and honored, even in some quarters of the Church.

Because it is apparent what the Church is trying to do here. The traditional history taught by the Church doesn't match up with reality unfortunately. The Church is trying to help contain the "Google Apostasy" which is alive and well. Only sound doctrine and truth will do that. Otherwise the Church must be prepared for people to continue to become dissatisfied and leave.

If we're looking at "reality", then we must look at all of it--including the "reality" that David O. McKay repeatedly approached the Lord and offered to remove the ban, only to see that offer declined every time.

God may have seen the policy as a detestable-but-necessary compromise given the social situation at the time (rather the way I see our current policy of denying priesthood, temple ordinances, and even baptism to Holocaust victims who weren't fortunate enough to have descendants who joined the LDS Church), but the bottom line regarding the policy is that He owned it--and that, during as "enlightened" a period as the 1960s. Making it very likely that in "reality", Brigham Young is little more than a whipping boy for modern progressives in and out of the Church who cannot fathom a God who thinks differently than they do.

*Compare the verbiage of Hinckley's ad hoc teaching in his April 2006 conference address with--for example--this statement from Joseph Smith:

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It's an eternal principle that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is on the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.

That's how a Prophet of God teaches a notion that transcends time, place, and culture such as to condemn all who violate it.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't it seems strange that Joseph Smith ordained black men and Brigham did not? I mean Joseph we know(believe) saw angels, Christ and the Father. Brigham said that he wasn't a prophet and that Heber C. Kimball was "his" prophet. Brigham was chosen by common consent (something I agree with). Yet we all assume that Brigham was indeed a prophet and that what he said is doctrine. I like Brigham. I think he was honest. I think he was an extraordinary leader. I do not think he was a prophet like Joseph.

I have a hard time taking anyone's word, even President Monson's, over Joseph Smith's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't it seems strange that Joseph Smith ordained black men and Brigham did not?

What's even stranger is that Brigham endorsed black men's holding the priesthood before he rejected it--see John Turner's recent biography of him.

Saying that "well, there was a change in leadership, and Brigham was a racist from the get-go" just doesn't cut it. Something happened, around 1847-1848, that changed Brigham's mind.

I mean Joseph we know(believe) saw angels, Christ and the Father. Brigham said that he wasn't a prophet and that Heber C. Kimball was "his" prophet. Brigham was chosen by common consent (something I agree with). Yet we all assume that Brigham was indeed a prophet and that what he said is doctrine. I like Brigham. I think he was honest. I think he was an extraordinary leader. I do not think he was a prophet like Joseph.

Young freely acknowledged that Joseph Smith was the prophet par excellence of this dispensation. He was not, at least early on, wholly comfortable being called a "prophet". But you might want to take a look at this Ensign article from 1977 (written by D. Michael Quinn, back before he decided he was gay and left the Church) regarding Young's personal spirituality. Throughout the 1840s and 1850s Young steadfastly remained that "the oracles of God" rested with him personally; and certainly by the early 1860s Young was saying (paraphrasing here) "if you want to call me a prophet, that's fine with me" (see, e.g., Journal of Discourses 10:339., from a discourse given in 1864). In later years he was repeatedly sustained as a "prophet, seer, and revelator".

I have a hard time taking anyone's word, even President Monson's, over Joseph Smith's.

Yet there must be some limits to this; else you would condone modern polygamy and a six-hour endowment ritual.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outsider looking-in muses: I know that scripture must reconcile. Prophets/prophecies must reconcile with scripture or be declared wrong. Leadership teachings should reconcile with scripture, but can be chalked up to human error, overstatement, hyperbole, etc.

So, my question: Is it possible for an LDS prophet to say something he believes in prophecy, and for it to turn out to be error? If so, is there room for this? Can it be said that the prophet spoke out of opinion in a given matter, even though he declared it prophesy at the time?

In pentecostal teaching, this is not only possible, but is an obligation of church leaders. When prophesy is spoken, we are commanded to seek the gift of discernment. If there is error, correction is made. I have no suggestions about any given prophesy or teaching. My question is "in general."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my question: Is it possible for an LDS prophet to say something he believes in prophecy, and for it to turn out to be error? If so, is there room for this? Can it be said that the prophet spoke out of opinion in a given matter, even though he declared it prophesy at the time?

I don't know. What I do know is that God's house (and kingdom) is a house of order. I also very firmly believe that the president of the Church will never lead the Church astray. That is not to say he won't make mistakes; such would be too much to ask of any man. But he will never lead the Church astray. In my understanding, this would preclude spurious revelations, but I am not 100% sold on that idea. More like 99.6%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my question: Is it possible for an LDS prophet to say something he believes in prophecy, and for it to turn out to be error? If so, is there room for this? Can it be said that the prophet spoke out of opinion in a given matter, even though he declared it prophesy at the time?

In pentecostal teaching, this is not only possible, but is an obligation of church leaders. When prophesy is spoken, we are commanded to seek the gift of discernment. If there is error, correction is made. I have no suggestions about any given prophesy or teaching. My question is "in general."

I think it's possible; but I also think it would be incumbent on the Lord to fix such a scenario as soon as practicable rather than allowing the error to become codified by time, consensus, and lack of revelation to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. What I do know is that God's house (and kingdom) is a house of order. I also very firmly believe that the president of the Church will never lead the Church astray. That is not to say he won't make mistakes; such would be too much to ask of any man. But he will never lead the Church astray. In my understanding, this would preclude spurious revelations, but I am not 100% sold on that idea. More like 99.6%.

Well, this is about right, imho. After all, I know there is a means for discerning erroneous prophesy, but have never heard one, nor seen public correction given. Most who claim to discern are simply analyzing according to their understanding of the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's possible; but I also think it would be incumbent on the Lord to fix such a scenario as soon as practicable rather than allowing the error to become codified by time, consensus, and lack of revelation to the contrary.

I generally agree. However, a survey of the Old Testament tells me that when the household of faith grows hard-headed/hearted God will tarry until a generation with a few righteous arises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outsider looking-in muses: I know that scripture must reconcile. Prophets/prophecies must reconcile with scripture or be declared wrong. Leadership teachings should reconcile with scripture, but can be chalked up to human error, overstatement, hyperbole, etc.

So, my question: Is it possible for an LDS prophet to say something he believes in prophecy, and for it to turn out to be error? If so, is there room for this? Can it be said that the prophet spoke out of opinion in a given matter, even though he declared it prophesy at the time?

In pentecostal teaching, this is not only possible, but is an obligation of church leaders. When prophesy is spoken, we are commanded to seek the gift of discernment. If there is error, correction is made. I have no suggestions about any given prophesy or teaching. My question is "in general."

If such a prophet does that, and it failed because THEY received revelation than they are a false prophet. Could it be possible for a man to think its prophecy when its not? Yes sure its possible, if they are deceived or still lack the gift of discernment. There are circumstances were prophecies CAN be fulfilled different than WE think they will be fulfilled however. Also there could be times when one is stated, and the people repent changing it. Or in essence, its a conditional prophecy based off "the people". Though such a prophecy I would think would be stated AS such, ie "Repent else be destroyed".

Back to the OP,

Policy or doctrine?

1949 First Presidency statement:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF THE DECLARATION OF A POLICY BUT OF DIRECT COMMUNICATION FROM THE LORD< ON WHICH IS FOUNDED THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH FROM THE DAYS OF ITS ORGANIZATION, TO THE EFFECT THAT NEGROES MAY BECOME MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH BUT THAT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRIESTHOOD AT THE PRESENT TIME.

Edited by ElectofGod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is mentioned here as well as numerous other sources when I googled it.

Sorry, I should have clarified, from what official Church source?

Doing a google search brings up a multitude of Anti-LDS sites and a smaller number of quasi-Mormon sites, but I don't see anything on LDS.org or its sister websites.

Edited by mnn727
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I should have clarified, from what official Church source?

Doing a google search brings up a multitude of Anti-LDS sites and a smaller number of quasi-Mormon sites, but I don't see anything on LDS.org or its sister websites.

Official source? It's a First Presidency letter from August 17th, 1949. There are many sources where they quote the letter but let me just mention two, one is FAIR and the other source is a classic book in Black LDS history called "Neither White nor Black" by Lester E. Bush and Armand L. Mauss. Both are not Anti-Mormon sources.

Edited by Suzie
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's possible; but I also think it would be incumbent on the Lord to fix such a scenario as soon as practicable rather than allowing the error to become codified by time, consensus, and lack of revelation to the contrary.

Exactly...sort of like the Adam-God theory. (it only took 20 years for the Church to publicly renounce that one)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly...sort of like the Adam-God theory. (it only took 20 years for the Church to publicly renounce that one)

Actually, one of the first statements Young gave on the topic was around 1852. Around 1900 there were a couple of leaders who made statements rejecting the theory but an official one came by the hand of Kimball in 1976 General Conference. You do the math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly...sort of like the Adam-God theory. (it only took 20 years for the Church to publicly renounce that one)

Good example eh but you will get a lot of "He never taught that" "That's not what he meant" "People misunderstood his message" "Was it doctrinal?" and so on. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Adam-God theory was never officially promoted by the Church. Right?

Depends on what you mean by "officially promoted." When Adam-God was repudiated, President Smith said

"With reference to Prest. B. Youngs remarks, in a discourse delivered in 1852. with reference to 'Adam being the only God with whom we have to do' &c. I will say:---Prest. Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as a revelation or commandment from the Lord. The Doctrine was never submitted to the Councils of the Priesthood not to the Church for approval or ratification and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members thereof...."

To my knowledge, the priesthood ban never went through any of these channels either. It was just implemented (I can't say for sure if any of these channels existed at the time). One of the major differences between the priesthood ban and Adam-God is that many of Young's contemporaries disagreed with Young about Adam-God, and so it was a topic that continued to receive debate. If there had been more disagreement about the race policy, perhaps history could have turned out differently.

Of other interesting note on the priesthood ban, while we have (to my knowledge) no record of anything like a general assembly to institute it, what we now know as Official Declaration 2 was put forth to the general membership for acceptance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, one of the first statements Young gave on the topic was around 1852. Around 1900 there were a couple of leaders who made statements rejecting the theory but an official one came by the hand of Kimball in 1976 General Conference. You do the math.

The wiki-gods claim that Joseph F. Smith repudiated it in 1897.

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