Blacks And The Priesthood

[questioningmyreligion]

If We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

and slavery was abolished in 1865

and blacks were allowed to vote in 1965

How come blacks were finally allowed the Priesthood in 1978?

So all black people were punished for Cain's transgression in regards to the Priesthood just because of the color of their skin?

I know the first two examples of progress refer to the US and not the Mormons, but why were they so slow in furthering equality?

[CrimsonKairos]

Read this thread.

Also, instead of saying, "not us Mormons," you said, "not the Mormons." Are you really LDS or just posing?

[a-train]

Here we go again. The record is officially broken. Pray about it and follow the Spirit of God.

Hey, don't freak out until you can prove me wrong. The Brother of Jared was black.

-a-train

[Brother Dorsey]

If We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

and slavery was abolished in 1865

and blacks were allowed to vote in 1965

How come blacks were finally allowed the Priesthood in 1978?

So all black people were punished for Cain's transgression in regards to the Priesthood just because of the color of their skin?

I know the first two examples of progress refer to the US and not the Mormons, but why were they so slow in furthering equality?

Me thinks you is confused, blacks not holding the Preisthood in the church was NOT because of the sin or transgression of Cain...it was because God commanded it for reasons which are really still unknown to us....however there is speculation which I am not going to discuss here. AND, slavery being abolished and blacks receiving the vote had nothing to do with God....those were things the Lord did not give revelation on. And to answer your question with a question...."But why were they so slow in furthering equality?" They? Whose they? The Lord does things in His own way and His own time....and the revelation was received in 1978 from God to allow blacks to hold the Priesthood. PERIOD. The commandment was given by the Lord and recinded by the Lord. If you know your scriptures then you will remember in the OT only one tribe of the 12 could hold the Preisthood (I don't recall which...I'm not a Biblical scholar by any means), This doesn't me the Lord was discriminating against others...it just meant He was doing things His way!

I see you also have no questions about the fact that women can't hold the Preisthood....does this mean the church is slow in furthering equality? No it means the Lord is doing things His way., and His way is the Eternal way!

[LukeAir2006]

B)

[sixpacktr]

Hey, don't freak out until you can prove me wrong. The Brother of Jared was black.

-a-train

a-train.

Huh? That's a new one to me. Not saying you're wrong, but what evidences can you cite to back that up?

[Snow]

Me thinks you is confused, blacks not holding the Preisthood in the church was NOT because of the sin or transgression of Cain...it was because God commanded it for reasons which are really still unknown to us....however there is speculation which I am not going to discuss here.

Could you cite some evidence that God wanted to withhold the priesthood from blacks?

[a-train]

Site some evidence that the Jaredites were white, and I'll sight the evidence that they were black.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Site some evidence that the Jaredites were white, and I'll sight the evidence that they were black.

I just have to point out--in a good-humored way--that you spelled "cite" incorrectly twice, a-train. A site is a location, and sight refers to vision. Ah, now cite, that refers to providing a source from which we draw a quote or idea.

[a-train]

That was my joke.

Locate some evidence that the Jaredites were white, and I'll sight-in (envision, magnify) the evidence that they were black.

Perhaps I am just getting in over my head here.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I was wondering how someone as astute and meticulous as yourself could misspell the same word twice, in two different ways.

The joke's on me. I gotcha now. Any more of that and you'll be sent to the pun-itentiary, where you'll be severely pun-ished. B)

[a-train]

We are becoming our dads.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Golden.

[Outshined]

Me thinks you is confused

Methinks it was a troll. One post, with the religion stated as "Mormon", referring to Latter-day Saints in the third person...

[Guest Username-Removed]

Priesthood given to African Americans 1978? That's Ancient history.

- The Blues Brothers make their first appearance on Saturday Night Live.

- The "Duran Duran" band was formed

- "You Don't Bring Me Flowers" - Barbra Streisand & Neil Diamond made the top charts

- The movie "Grease" hit the theaters

The church isnt perfect, the gospel is.

[sixpacktr]

Site some evidence that the Jaredites were white, and I'll sight the evidence that they were black.

-a-train

Ok, I thought you actually had something there. If that is the case, why not say that since I can't prove that the Jaredites were actually from this planet, that they may have been Martians?

I've always pictured them as desert peoples, like the Arabs of today, or Asiatic, much like the Mongols were, so they may have been yellow instead of white or black...

[a-train]

Nope. Black. Straight up Black.

-a-train

[sixpacktr]

Nope. Black. Straight up Black.

-a-train

Again, why? And "why not?" is not an answer!

[a-train]

OK, OK.

Sheesh.

Answer this question: What color were the descendants of Ham?

-a-train

[Guest Username-Removed]

OK, OK.

Sheesh.

Answer this question: What color were the descendants of Ham?

-a-train

Pink???!!!! Sorry, Pls continue

[sixpacktr]

OK, OK.

Sheesh.

Answer this question: What color were the descendants of Ham?

-a-train

Ahhhh!

A-train,

I have just been rereading the OT, and see where you are coming from. Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord, was a descendant of Ham thru Cush. However, Nimrod was a wicked man, wanting to build the tower.

In reading Abraham about Ham, we read:

21 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.

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

23 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;

24 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.

25 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.

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,

(Pearl of Great Price | Abraham 1:21 - 27)

That being said, the ancient world was as metropolitan and fluid as we are today, lots of people travelling back and forth to different places. Hugh Nibley explains this better with Lehi in the Desert and other BOM lectures. So while Nimrod may have been black (if the Bible account is correct, and how can I prove it isn't?), it doesn't necessarily follow that Jared and his people were. They may have been foreigners in the land of Nimrod either thru conquest or cheap labor brought in to build the tower (kind of like today!). Who knows.

Unless, of course, you have another set of verses I am overlooking? I'd be curious to know.

Thanks.

[Jason]

Could you cite some evidence that God wanted to withhold the priesthood from blacks?

Im still waiting for a brave soul to respond to this mighty challenge!

[MaidservantX]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure plains of Shinar was near mesopotamia. Lots and lots of people -- metropolitan as already said. Also, Eskimos and probably all northern Native Americans, and farther south ancient Olmecs, are Jaredites in my opinion. Definitely not white.

I am pondering what has been said regarding what evidence that God wanted to withhold the priesthood from blacks. The basic answer is of course, he didn't and he doesn't. The implication intended (I think) is that the Church and its prophets (and the people agreeing) got it seriously wrong -- no one actually listening to God. As I said, still thinking about this question. I mean I could point out lots of stuff that surrounds that question, but nothing that would get right at it. And again -- I simply do not think he had or has that desire, to withhold.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think I'm the only one -- it is NOT okay with me that blacks once did not have the priesthood -- the best thing that can be said about it, is that it is a lesser law -- much lesser. This opinion exists within me and does not in anyway violate my testimony of my Father, Jesus Christ and of the Restored Gospel and Church. In fact, I am soo glad that God led us to shed those shackles: because there is nothing in the Celestial Kingdom that is going to reflect that mortal fact (no priesthood for blacks) that existed for a brief period (kolob time, ha ha).

By the way, part of this story is that President Kimball (and co) petitioned the Lord for this to be so for some time -- for the priesthood to be able to be given to blacks. He/ they wanted it very badly.

Another part of the story is that I do not find in the main sources we have for the narrative regarding Cain (Genesis and Book of Moses) that God cursed Cain's posterity from the priesthood. I think to the degree that that is true, it arose in the lifetimes and due to the situation with Ham and his son Pharoah.

I think a lot about black heritage and I think a lot about the wonder of all the beauty, gifts and purpose of all the children of God currently on the earth today. I am actually in awe of God's work in history, the present and going forward from here. I am humbled to realize I don't comprehend the fullness of it; I believe we have many, many more paradigm shifts in front of us: some I can predict and some I can't. And by the way, Tower of Babel is being reversed. Isn't it fun??

[CrimsonKairos]

My view at present is not that God didn't want blacks to have the priesthood due to their lineage. As has been pointed out, Joseph Smith himself ordained at least two black men.

I think the priesthood "ban" and the polygamy "manifesto" have much in common. In both cases, I think the Lord's prophet saw what would happen to the Church if certain things stayed the same. In both cases, I think a decision was made based on the belief that if things stayed the same, the Church would be hamstrung and prevented from moving forward.

I've asked myself the following:

1.) Was Brigham Young the Lord's prophet, approved and authorized by God to lead His Church? I believe so.

2.) Did God want blacks denied the priesthood because they were related to Ham or Cain? I don't believe so.

3.) Why didn't God reveal to Brigham Young that the ban was not a matter of lineage? I believe that if He had, Pres. Young would have heeded such a revelation.

4.) So if it wasn't God's will that blacks be denied the priesthood because of some hereditary curse, why didn't He command Pres. Young to repeal the ban?

My answer to #4 is that perhaps the priesthood ban was wise or even necessary for the Church's progress at that time, but not because blacks were under Cain's curse or Ham's curse. I think that perhaps Pres. Young got the "what" right (the ban) but the "why" wrong (the "curse of Ham or Cain" teaching).

As with the manifesto on polygamy, in the case of the priesthood ban I believe the Lord's prophet foresaw the danger to the Lord's Church that would result from following the present course (which Joseph Smith set when he ordained at least two black men). Much of the Missouri anti-mormonism was due to Joseph Smith and the Church being abolitionists.

I can see Pres. Young reviewing the infamous extermination order, the expulsion of the saints from Missouri with violence and malice, and I can see Pres. Young coming to believe that if the Church continued to ordain blacks and support the idea of a slave-free America (which only the Civil War and hundreds of thousands of deaths could later accomplish), then similar persecution would dog the Church's footsteps no matter where it went.

Whether Pres. Young believed that, and if he did, whether that belief was accurate is a matter of speculation.

What is not a matter of speculation is that the Lord's Church is alive and well today, and all worthy males may receive the holy priesthood.

[Guest Yediyd]

My view at present is not that God didn't want blacks to have the priesthood due to their lineage. As has been pointed out, Joseph Smith himself ordained at least two black men.

I think the priesthood "ban" and the polygamy "manifesto" have much in common. In both cases, I think the Lord's prophet saw what would happen to the Church if certain things stayed the same. In both cases, I think a decision was made based on the belief that if things stayed the same, the Church would be hamstrung and prevented from moving forward.

I've asked myself the following:

1.) Was Brigham Young the Lord's prophet, approved and authorized by God to lead His Church? I believe so.

2.) Did God want blacks denied the priesthood because they were related to Ham or Cain? I don't believe so.

3.) Why didn't God reveal to Brigham Young that the ban was not a matter of lineage? I believe that if He had, Pres. Young would have heeded such a revelation.

4.) So if it wasn't God's will that blacks be denied the priesthood because of some hereditary curse, why didn't He command Pres. Young to repeal the ban?

My answer to #4 is that perhaps the priesthood ban was wise or even necessary for the Church's progress at that time, but not because blacks were under Cain's curse or Ham's curse. I think that perhaps Pres. Young got the "what" right (the ban) but the "why" wrong (the "curse of Ham or Cain" teaching).

As with the manifesto on polygamy, in the case of the priesthood ban I believe the Lord's prophet foresaw the danger to the Lord's Church that would result from following the present course (which Joseph Smith set when he ordained at least two black men). Much of the Missouri anti-mormonism was due to Joseph Smith and the Church being abolitionists.

I can see Pres. Young reviewing the infamous extermination order, the expulsion of the saints from Missouri with violence and malice, and I can see Pres. Young coming to believe that if the Church continued to ordain blacks and support the idea of a slave-free America (which only the Civil War and hundreds of thousands of deaths could later accomplish), then similar persecution would dog the Church's footsteps no matter where it went.

Whether Pres. Young believed that, and if he did, whether that belief was accurate is a matter of speculation.

What is not a matter of speculation is that the Lord's Church is alive and well today, and all worthy males may receive the holy priesthood.

I'm with you, Crimson... whether Brigham believed that blacks were "cursed" or not is irrelivent because God knew...and God knew what would have happened to our church if he alowed the truth to be known at that time. The truth is...black people are no better or worse, smarter or dumber than white...but in that time period...it was suicide to proclaim it. God has alot of truth that he waits for the RIGHT time to reveal...he knows how much we can stand and when we can stand it...that's why he said..."Line upon line, precept upon precept" All in good order...God was in control then, and still is today.