40 Years: Commemorating the 1978 Priesthood and Temple Revelation

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, Suzie said:

 is a moot point.

Nope, "moot" is only a word I can use. I dibbed it.

[Suzie]

Anddenex, I guess we interpreted the essay differently and that's okay.

Having said that, I can only imagine the serious connotations that the Church would face if they ever state (categorically) that the ban was not inspired.

Edit: Just so I am clear as I am responding to you, this statement of mine, "It is in how they approach and specify their thoughts and feeling with regard to one of God's chosen servants -- Brigham Young," is not toward you. Our conversation has been on what has been said.

I take no offense at all while debating, unless you're insulting me which of course, you have not and I don't think you have that kind of predisposition. ;)

[lostinwater]

On 10/16/2018 at 11:25 PM, mordorbund said:

Just FYI*, Brigham Young said he had a low opinion of master whipping and breaking the bones of their slaves (based on the source you linked).

Thank-you.

Full paragraph. 

I would like masters to behave well to their servants, and to see that every person in this territory is well used. When a master has a Negro and uses him well, he is much better off than if he was free. As for masters knocking them down and whipping them and breaking the limbs of their servants, I have as little opinion of that as any person can have; but good wholesome servitude, I know there is nothing better than that.

Recommend that each person read the whole article and interpret themselves.  i can see how you can argue that point though.  But regardless, that's just one of a couple dozen similar remarks running through the whole thing (ie preceding sentence).  And this speech just one of several.

[Please link to a version not hosted by an anti-Mormon site.  Thanks.  --JAG]

Or here is an alternative source with the original journals text was transcribed from.

https://archive.org/details/CR100317B0001F0014/page/n1

Edited October 20, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, Scott said:

 

Fine.   As far as known, there is no written record of a revelation behind the priesthood ban.   Unless you know of one.   

If you insist on everything being written - you may be a lawyer or perhaps a successful business man - the kind I do not like having anything to do with.  As humans we communicate symbolically - usually with words.  Seldom is the intended meaning completely encapsulated in the words used - on occasions the context may be more important than the words themselves.  Never did Brigham Young teach that any human was not a child of G-d or that G-d loves some of his children more than others.  It is important to understand that the era in which Brigham Young lived - it was widely believed that Negros were not descended from Adam and were creatures (sometimes called mud creatures) less than human.  Brigham never taught that priesthood and temple blessings would never be extended - In essence he taught that it would come at another time.  All that we know now by revelation is that now is that time.  

Your post imply that you know something about this matter that I don't.  If you know that Brigham Young should have revealed that Blacks should have been given the Priesthood and Temple blessings in his day and not later - I would be most interested why.  I have pondered this question for most of my life and have not found a logical reason - or even a spiritual one.  Someday I will know the answer - weather it be this life or the next.  I have a very long list of unanswered questions - I have said this before - from time to time I find answers to questions but it seems that when I do there are a thousand new questions that arise.  

I am personally grateful that Blacks can now hold the priesthood and attend the temple - I can say that such is an answer to many heartfelt personal prayers even though I do not understand at all what changed.  I see no evidence that anything changed that Brigham did not have some (at least in part) understanding.  If you have contrary evidence I would be very interested.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Suzie said:

That's exactly the point I am trying to make. We do NOT know means "we do not know". Then since we cannot state that it was NOT a revelation since "we do NOT know", calling it a REVELATION when "we do not know" is a moot point. equally incorrect.

I'm going to believe that is what you meant.  If so, I agree.  But everything you've said so far sounded like "We do not know" means "It was NOT revelation".  That is what I disagree with.  Recognizing that based on the "we do not know" statement alone, we cannot know either way.  So, if you're (generic) going to lean one side or the other in your proclamations, then provide sufficient evidence to support your hypothesis if we're going to have a rational discussion about it.

The argument that @Anddenex made earlier is evidence that it WAS revelation.  Clear and convincing?  Nope.  But it is enough to believe it may have been so.  Your argument that "it was not presented to the membership" was a poor one as has been shown by counter arguments.  Do you have a counter argument to the lack of inspiration to end the practice to Pres. McKay?  If so, offer it.  I'm listening.  While I lean to one side, I'm still open to change my mind.  So, offer one.

[Suzie]

Carborendum, I don't want my quote to be changed, so please edit and leave the original. You are free to reply with "equally incorrect" as your own post but please don't alter my quote.

I discussed/debated about the origins of the Priesthood ban on this forum too MANY times (with Just_A_Guy and many other members). Please, feel free to make a search and find those threads OR IF I have time in the next few days, I will look for the threads myself and post the specific (and long) replies/historical points I made about it. I don't promise though, I am writing a book and I am already behind.

[Anddenex]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The argument that @Anddenex made earlier is evidence that it WAS revelation.  Clear and convincing?  Nope. 

Ye .... ah dang ... 😰

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@AnddenexBut it is enough to believe it may have been so. 

Pheeew.... ☺️

[Anddenex]

4 minutes ago, Suzie said:

I am writing a book and I am already behind.

Oohh! Spoilers, perhaps?

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Carborendum, I don't want my quote to be changed, so please edit and leave the original. You are free to reply with "equally incorrect" as your own post but please don't alter my quote.

His "change" to your quote was clearly marked as such. No one who reads his post will think you wrote that. No need to get in a snit.

For that matter, his change to your quote did indeed make it more accurate. You admit that the reason for the Priesthood ban is unknown, so claiming it was done without revelation is equally moot to claiming it was done with revelation. Unless you were actually trying to be biased and leading in your statement -- on which point we give you the benefit of the doubt -- saying the two claims are "equally incorrect" is more accurate than stating that one was "moot" without mentioning that the other was equally moot.

[Traveler]

After some pondering - I have thought to post something - with a disclaimer.  I was not present when the revelation to give Blacks the priesthood and temple blessings was given - nor was the person that gave me this account.  I will leave it to those to ponder and pray themselves.  Thus what I print is not my opinion.  The person that told me has since passed.  This is what I was told - but given in my own words.

I was told that the president (prophet) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and several apostles had gathered in the Salt Lake Temple to call upon G-d for direction (but that this was not the first time).  While in the attitude of prayer that several angles from G-d appeared to those gathered and administered to them telling them that their prayers (and the prayers of many members) had come up before the L-rd that that G-d has sent them to open up the time for which all worthy male members of the Church could receive the priesthood and the oath and covenant of the priesthood opening up all the temple blessings and work for ancestors and all other possible blessings of covenant membership.  I was told and I believe that the first presidency as well as the quorum of the 12 all voted unanimously in agreement that the time has come for all worthy males (12 and older) are able to receive the priesthood.

I do not give this as doctrine nor do I testify of the truthfulness of the account - it is not my place or calling to do so.  But I will say this - that the time has come and that it was under the direction of G-d that the change was made (not of any mortal man).  And that I believe that we should rejoice - that we are so honored to live in this time and that we thank the L-rd that this has taken place and and that we can be a part of bringing these blessings to those that previously did not have opportunity.

 

The Traveler

[Suzie]

Found the link. Have fun! . Back to my cave.

https://thirdhour.org/forums/topic/51806-church-issues-race-priesthood-statement-rejecting-theories-for-past-ban-on-blacks-in-priesthood/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-752874

[Vort]

My characteristic bluntness is often misunderstood. I recognize that as primarily my fault. Beginning twenty-six-ish years ago, in my early internet years, I learned the hard way to express myself forcefully and clearly in internet exchanges -- especially on religious topics -- so as not to be misunderstood, willfully or otherwise. For about the last ten years, I have been trying to unlearn some of those lessons and instead express myself while keeping in mind the capabilities and biases of my audience, specifically of my discussion partners.

For the record: I enjoy many of @Suzie's contributions. They are almost always well-reasoned and well-expressed. In this, she resembles JAG, which I think is a high compliment indeed. I often disagree with Suzie's viewpoint, the inferences she makes, and the conclusions she seems to draw. But I find the contents of many or most of her posts valuable, and I think she is a benefit to the discussions she participates in. Same with her husband. (Unless MoE isn't her husband, in which case, scratch that). So I'm writing this to dispel any impression I may have made to the contrary.

Just for the record. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Suzie said:

Found the link. Have fun! . Back to my cave.

I thought Batman had a cave, not Wonder Woman?! Don't you mean paradise island?

[Guest]

On 10/17/2018 at 1:20 PM, Traveler said:

After some pondering - I have thought to post something - with a disclaimer.  I was not present when the revelation to give Blacks the priesthood and temple blessings was given - nor was the person that gave me this account.  I will leave it to those to ponder and pray themselves.  Thus what I print is not my opinion.  The person that told me has since passed.  This is what I was told - but given in my own words.

I was told that the president (prophet) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and several apostles had gathered in the Salt Lake Temple to call upon G-d for direction (but that this was not the first time).  While in the attitude of prayer that several angles from G-d appeared to those gathered and administered to them telling them that their prayers (and the prayers of many members) had come up before the L-rd that that G-d has sent them to open up the time for which all worthy male members of the Church could receive the priesthood and the oath and covenant of the priesthood opening up all the temple blessings and work for ancestors and all other possible blessings of covenant membership.  I was told and I believe that the first presidency as well as the quorum of the 12 all voted unanimously in agreement that the time has come for all worthy males (12 and older) are able to receive the priesthood.

I do not give this as doctrine nor do I testify of the truthfulness of the account - it is not my place or calling to do so.  But I will say this - that the time has come and that it was under the direction of G-d that the change was made (not of any mortal man).  And that I believe that we should rejoice - that we are so honored to live in this time and that we thank the L-rd that this has taken place and and that we can be a part of bringing these blessings to those that previously did not have opportunity.

 

The Traveler

During Sunday School, we had an "official" Church account of what happened.  It did not include any visions or angelic visitations.  But it was a strong outpouring of the Spirit in which there was no mistaking it by any of the fifteen people present.  They simultaneously felt it and knew what the will of the Lord was.

Was there more than the official story?  How would we know?

[Guest]

On 10/17/2018 at 12:26 PM, Suzie said:

Carborendum, I don't want my quote to be changed, so please edit and leave the original. You are free to reply with "equally incorrect" as your own post but please don't alter my quote.

I discussed/debated about the origins of the Priesthood ban on this forum too MANY times (with Just_A_Guy and many other members). Please, feel free to make a search and find those threads OR IF I have time in the next few days, I will look for the threads myself and post the specific (and long) replies/historical points I made about it. I don't promise though, I am writing a book and I am already behind.

OK.  I really don't understand any of this post.

First, instead of actually responding to my post, you look at my attempt (via a very common method which is clearly marked) to try to find common ground and choose to be offended that I might think you would be motivated to find common ground as well.

Also, you start a whole new thread all on your own (and seemingly without any recent media impetus) about the Priesthood ban, but then you find it annoying when someone continues to ask you about your position and arguments?  If you've already made all your arguments, why open up YET ANOTHER thread since, in your own words, you've already 

Quote

discussed/debated about the origins of the Priesthood ban on this forum too MANY times

Why bring it up again if you're not willing to talk about it again?

[Guest]

On 10/16/2018 at 4:14 PM, MarginOfError said:

Very well then. Call it something different. Courts will use terms like discriminatory intent and discriminatory impact to capture the same notion.

Whether there is intent or not, the impact is the same. Which is the important part of the message. And a lot of "non racist white people" try to use the intent qualifier to absolve themselves of the responsibility of the impact. We shouldn't let them.

As for the building policy, it has the impact. In the map I provided above, more or bigger building could have been built closer to the center of the city, with suburban members assuming the burden to go inward to buildings, instead of urban members being asked to travel outward. That isn't what happens. At present, the Church's attitude toward reaching out to minorities is "we invite minorities to come to us." 

Oh boy!

So, as long as it is codified, that makes it logically and morally right?  Is that what you're saying?  You're at least implying it.

Consider this.  Tithing by legal, codified standards which you're describing is a regressive (anti-poor people, anti-minority) economic policy.  Run with that.  See where that takes you.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Guest

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

During Sunday School, we had an "official" Church account of what happened.  It did not include any visions or angelic visitations.  But it was a strong outpouring of the Spirit in which there was no mistaking it by any of the fifteen people present.  They simultaneously felt it and knew what the will of the Lord was.

Was there more than the official story?  How would we know?

As we study the scriptures we will encounter times that G-d commands that something be written or added to the official scriptural account.  One example is in 3Nephi where Nephi is commanded to include the words and prophesies of Samuel.   We have other accounts were things were omitted - One such example is in Luke concerning Mary the mother of Jesus that kept somethings in her heart.  

In mathematics we have a phrase of two words - "necessary" and "sufficient".  One might ponder if such logic applies to spiritual things as well. There is perhaps other logical constructs that may apply to revelation - such as line upon line upon line, that there are things yet to be revealed and the casing of pearls before swine.   There seems to be an tendency among many members and scholars to assume that historical context and the opinions of individuals at the time gives insight, purpose and intent into divine revelation - but I wonder if such assumptions are in essence putting the cart before the horse.

I will add something to the discussion.  Lehi had a vision after leaving Jerusalem.  The particular vision had some controversy within Lehi's family.  Though the vision was given to the entire family - it would seem that Nephi was the most curious.   A version of the vision was given to Nephi which he recorded.  What we do not know is if Nephi's version was any different than his father's.  What we do know is that whenever there is any discernible excuse for a discrepancy that elements will use such things for their own purpose.

 

The Traveler

[Suzie]

Carborendum, choose to be offended? I think you read too much into my request and perhaps assumed or projected emotion when there was none on my part.

FWIW, the art of debate for me (particularly with regards to Church history) is the ability to examine and dissect (civilly) the content a poster brings to the table without making the poster as an individual or the assumed zeal, emotions or personal opinion, the center of my exchanges.

I mentioned that I discussed about the origin of the Priesthood ban many times on this forum because this is not the topic of the thread I started, but rather I was seeking opinion about Marvin's recent statements at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious scholarship during the commemoration of the 1978 Priesthood & Temple Revelation with regards to what he described as "false teachings, attitudes and perceptions that still remain in the Church with regards to the Priesthood ban".

I hope this synopsis helps to clarify the point.

If you would like, please make a list of questions you might want me to answer with regards to my position on the whole issue. I really presented everything I could in the thread I linked to you earlier on but I will just post  a few edits of my previous posts so you can see my position:

1. If the Lord allegedly said “not yet” does it automatically mean he was indeed behind the placement of the ban or did he allow the continuation for another reason unknown to us?

2. If he was not the one who instituted the ban, did Brigham Young’s personal bigotry (full or in part) caused the prohibition of the rights to the Priesthood to thousands of members across the world for over 100 years?

Could it be that many leaders after Young’s death just automatically assumed he was right all along and did not dare to question the practice?

We have the founder of this Church, Joseph Smith giving the Priesthood to at least one Black member of the Church (Elijah Abel) who also got his washing and anointing at Kirtland and was even ordained a Seventy. We know through research that a few people were questioning his right to the Priesthood because of his race.

Zebedee Coltrin was one of them and said that Smith stated as early as 1834 that Blacks were not entitled to the Priesthood and yet was Smith himself who ordained Abel to the Priesthood. On top of that it was Coltrin himself who ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836 and there were several meetings held afterwards to discuss Abel, his race and his rights but his Priesthood remained intact.

However, from that point we see a change taking place with regards to the rights Abel held.  But why? Just three years later after those meetings, they restricted his missionary work out of the blue (on what basis?) yet his Priesthood (so far) remained the same. Another Black man (Lewis) was ordained to the Priesthood by one of Smith’s brothers. We know for a fact that these two brothers were LDS members in good standing, faithful and active.

But then just a little over 10 years (1847) of Abel’s ordination, the infamous William McCary comes to the picture and I believe he is the catalyst of this whole issue or at least in part. He believed to be a Prophet, seduced many white LDS women into "marrying" him, made his own wife witness having sexual relations with these women, and even believed he was some sort of Indian spirit. Why is McCary the catalyst of the placement of the ban in my view?

Simply, because it was during the same year (just a few months after McCary seduced these ladies) when Young declared that Blacks were ineligible for certain temple ordinances. Pure coincidence? Honestly, I do not think so.

When Pratt found out about what McCary was doing with these sisters, he was the one that is quoted as asking (paraphrasing) “Why in the world would they (the women who were fooled by McCary) follow someone who has no right to the Priesthood?

In a period of two years, Young totally changed his mind with regards to whether or not it has to do with the “blood”(race). What happened during those two years that made Young changed his mind from "it has nothing to do with the blood" to it was because of the blood. It remains a mystery to me.

At this point of time, Abel still held the Priesthood even though there have been some failed attempts to discredit the ordination (and we have certificates to prove it!), he remained a faithful and active LDS member and even served a third mission later in life.

Why was then he denied the right to receive his own endowments by Young himself? Again, this man held the Priesthood and he was a Seventy and served at least two missions for the Church at that moment, why was he denied the opportunity to enter the Temple and receive his own endowments when he fully qualified to enter?

This is what I am talking about when I say I cannot fully state that the Lord was indeed the one that instituted the placement of the ban.

Just after two years of Abel’s request being denied, Brigham Young died. Joseph F. Smith was someone that would defend Abel’s ordination a few times when Coltrin still claimed that when Smith learned that Abel was black he was dropped from the Quorum of the Seventy (for those who do not know, Abel was mulatto).

Joseph F. Smith had no problem of defending Abel’s ordination and showed the certificates that proved it. Even a decade after Abel’s death, they were still talking and wondering about Abel’s ordination and Joseph F. Smith defended Abel’s right to hold the Priesthood. Abel’s son and grandson were ordained and I am sure quite a few people know they held the Priesthood as far as 1935.

And then the other mystery. What really happened during those 40 years that made Joseph F. Smith completely change his mind about it and declare that Joseph Smith Jr. did indeed established that Abel’s ordination was “null and void”? Even though he provided in the past the certificates of Abel’s ordination when Coltrin and others tried to discredit it.

Bizarre!

Then we learned of Walker Lewis’s son marrying a white woman and Young's reaction to the whole affair when he discovered they had a child, all of this happening around the same time of the Priesthood ban.

So sincerely I cannot simply accept or believe outright that the Lord was indeed the one that instituted the ban. There are many unanswered questions and who placed the ban I believe, remains a mystery.

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Suzie
technical

[Suzie]

I apologize to everyone for making a post in one QUOTE. I have no idea how to fix it, if any of the mods can fix it for me I would appreciate it!

Edit: I fixed it, somehow.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Suzie

[askandanswer]

Thank you for your informative post @Suzie.  At times I am curious about questions related to the Priesthood ban but my curiosity is not strong enough to impel me to action or look for answers. I'm happy to put this issue into the "too hard" basket and leave it there until that day when all shall be revealed. . 

[Just_A_Guy]

Quote

On 10/16/2018 at 4:59 AM, @JohnsonJones said:

The statement that, one as a white male, is the persecuted individual is a defining part of racism today in the US.  . . . Ignoring and playing the victim while there are very REAL victims out there to me, is disgenius. 

I did not describe myself as “persecuted”.  Nor did I deny that there have been, and continue to be, victims of honest-to-gosh racism (as defined under the classical understanding of “treating someone as an inferior because of their race”).  I merely noted that non-minorities have been subjected to conflicting demands as to how they should treat minorities; and that there is a subset of people who do not want my “ministrations” in any form due to my own ethnic background.  Both of these assertions are factually correct.  It’s unfortunate that my low tolerance for drama is somehow being recharacterized as “racism”, and such a fluid meaning of the term makes it difficult to take seriously those who continue to bandy the word about in order to gain some sort of moral high ground.

As far as bona fide racism in the Church goes—all any of us can do is to individually try to treat everyone in a Christlike manner and encourage others to do the same.  Once we go beyond Martin Luther King's dream of equal treatment and a color-blind society and start attacking people as "racists" due to the minds they haven't read, the groveling they haven't done, or the resources they haven't redistributed; or when we start conflating economic and social issues and natter on about “institutional racism”—we’re really just hunting for witches. 

Quote

On 10/16/2018 at 3:14 PM, @MarginOfError said:

As for the building policy, it has the impact. In the map I provided above, more or bigger building could have been built closer to the center of the city, with suburban members assuming the burden to go inward to buildings, instead of urban members being asked to travel outward. That isn't what happens. At present, the Church's attitude toward reaching out to minorities is "we invite minorities to come to us." 

Well, no; based on the data you provided, the Church’s attitude is “we invite poor people to come to us”; and there seems to be no suggestion that outreach should be targeted towards any particular race.

Given a black man and a white man of similar education (or lack thereof), economic status (or lack thereof), and family situation (whether whole or broken), why would the Church be under a greater obligation to "reach out" to the one man than the other? 

Quote

On 10/16/2018 at 12:13 PM, @Scott said:

Was Brigham Young right or wrong when he said (many times and in many words) that no blacks will ever received the priesthood until every single while person had the chance to receive it?  

Was Brigham Young right or wrong when he said that the penalty for interracial marriage will be death on the spot and this will always be so?  

I agree with your larger point that Young gave some explanations for the policy that history has shown to be incorrect.  But you’re using a bad example, in this case.  Young is not talking about interracial marriage per se; he’s alluding to the Southern practice of slaveowners siring children with (in other words, raping) their black slaves.  You see that precisely two sentences earlier when Young, in the midst of an “a-pox-on-both-your-houses” tirade, notes that “the Southerners make the negroes, and the Northerners worship them”; and two paragraphs later, when he indicts Congress for its failure to “pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; [Congress] had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes.  For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.” 

And of course, Young thought that “death on the spot” was the divine penalty for quite a lot of offenses, including adultery.  (Yay for blood atonement!)

Quote

On 10/16/2018 at 5:03 PM, @Suzie said:

 About your explanation on why we might not have a record of the alleged revelation...well yes it is plausible, why not and that's the interesting thing about the ban. MANY possibilities, including as Kimball hinted, the possibility of an "error".

Right, but you know as well as I that when people hear “error”, they latch onto a particular type of error:  To wit, that Young got it wrong; that he led the Church into a course of action that was contrary to whatever God was instructing him to do.

The thing is, Kimball--both before and after the letter in question—attributed the policy to divine mandate.  So the potential “error” he sees as perhaps requiring forgiveness is not necessarily Young’s misuse of his authority; but the errors of individuals and societies that necessitated God’s implementing the ban as a response. 

For my part, I’m quite sure that God can and will forgive the possible errors that led to the Church’s current ban on temple work for deceased Jews—but that doesn’t mean I think Gordon Hinckley goofed up when he announced that ban. 

Quote

On 10/17/2018 at 12:47 AM, @Scott said:

There are many reasons why I personally tend to believe that the ban was not instituted by revelation.  For one, I believe that the following scripture (2 Nephi 26:33) says that all can partake of the goodness of God.   To me that means temple blessings as well. It does not say that certain people can only partake of part of the goodness.   The scripture also says that all are alike unto God (blacks being mentioned).

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he 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.

So why do you assume that the ban was a revelation?  This is a sincere question.

I’m not Vort, obviously; but my own answer would be twofold:  First, because the Church says that it was (see, https://thirdhour.org/forums/topic/51806-church-issues-race-priesthood-statement-rejecting-theories-for-past-ban-on-blacks-in-priesthood/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-752968); and second, because it has happened before (Aaronic priesthood prior to Christ’s coming) and is happening now (ban on proxy temple ordinances for dead Jews). 

Quote

Elder Dieter F. Uctdorf once said; "We all make mistakes,  but our destiny is not determined by the number of times we stumble but by the number of times we rise up, dust ourselves off, and move forward".   While that is applicable to individuals, can't it be applicable to the Church as a whole?

Because President Uchtdorf also said, “As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.”

That doesn’t mean everything the Church does is perfect; but I think there’s a limit to how much harm the Church can impose without authorization and still be accepted of the Lord.  And I think an unauthorized priesthood/temple ban would cross that limit by a pretty hefty margin. 

Quote

On 10/17/2018 at 4:32 AM, @Suzie said:

Guys, it goes both ways. As much as some of you (general "you") do not want others to state that the ban was not divinely inspired through revelation, please understand then that you shouldn't say it was because the modern-day Church did not make such proclamation and there is a very clear reason why. If it was (without any doubt) the Church will make that statement.

But it has made that statement, repeatedly.  See the post I linked to above. 

Quote

This is my personal interpretation. In these statements (you can read the whole essay), the Church is hinting (or some would say, stating) that there was a clear cultural, race factor influencing the decision for the restriction.

Sure; but “influencing the decision” is the million-dollar phrase here. 

I don’t think most of the folks citing “cultural factors” really want us to conclude that the Lord inspired Young to adopt a policy that, while not ideal, was necessitated so that the Church could effectively navigate the treacherous cultural/sociopolitical waters in which it found itself.  In most cases there's another agenda at play that has ramifications for other, more modern Church policies..  

Quote

6 hours ago, @Suzie said:

1. If the Lord allegedly said “not yet” does it automatically mean he was indeed behind the placement of the ban or did he allow the continuation for another reason unknown to us?

No, the Lord’s continuing the ban does not automatically mean He started it.  But the fact that He continued it does eviscerate the argument of progressive Mormons who cite, e.g., 2 Ne 26:33, to argue that the ban must have been spurious ab initio because God would never, ever, under any circumstances ever do such a thing. 

Quote

Could it be that many leaders after Young’s death just automatically assumed he was right all along and did not dare to question the practice?

We don’t know about all of those leaders, of course.  But we know from two or three sources that McKay prayed about it and was told to keep it in place; and Arrington claimed (without sourcing it, AFAIK) that Lee similarly prayed and got an identical answer.  And we know that Snow was uncomfortable with the ban from the very beginning.

Quote

But then just a little over 10 years (1847) of Abel’s ordination, the infamous William McCary comes to the picture and I believe he is the catalyst of this whole issue or at least in part. He believed to be a Prophet, seduced many white LDS women into "marrying" him, made his own wife witness having sexual relations with these women, and even believed he was some sort of Indian spirit. Why is McCary the catalyst of the placement of the ban in my view?

Simply, because it was during the same year (just a few months after McCary seduced these ladies) when Young declared that Blacks were ineligible for certain temple ordinances. Pure coincidence? Honestly, I do not think so.

When Pratt found out about what McCary was doing with these sisters, he was the one that is quoted as asking (paraphrasing) “Why in the world would they (the women who were fooled by McCary) follow someone who has no right to the Priesthood?

In a period of two years, Young totally changed his mind with regards to whether or not it has to do with the “blood”(race). What happened during those two years that made Young changed his mind from "it has nothing to do with the blood" to it was because of the blood. It remains a mystery to me.

Well, first off:  Stapley, Stapley, Stapley.

And second:  we’ve discussed this before, but I’ll just throw this out in case any new participants are unaware of it:  I think the succession crisis played a huge role in this.  Young had dealt with Rigdon, Strang, and William Smith, and was still dealing with or about to deal with George Miller and Lyman Wight; and the American church was hemorrhaging members.  McCary goes to Cincinnati and has sixty-odd converts—most poached from LDS congregations—within a month or two.  Above and beyond whatever inspiration the Lord may have been giving; I think Pratt gave Brigham the intellectual/theological basis that Brigham Young needed to summarily kneecap McCary’s claims and hamstring his movement.  For all we know, that prevented the LDS Church from going through a race-based schism like the ones the Baptists went through (repeatedly). 

The work can’t be done today, because race relations are so fraught and there’s so much that just can’t even be suggested—and especially in an academic setting.  But in four or five decades, someone’s going to publish a broad, searching, fearless, and relatively impartial analysis of whether the priesthood/temple ban turned out to be more of a help or a hindrance to the Church’s overall progress during the first century of its existence.  And I think the reaction to that analysis will be very interesting indeed.

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[askandanswer]

(New Testament | Matthew 15:24)

24  But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

My understanding of this scripture is that for reasons that seem to have a lot to do with race, Christ, and His teachings and His gospel and associated blessings, were sent only to people of Jewish descent, and not unto those of non-Jewish descent, but that there were some exceptions to this rule, such as the Samarian woman at the well and the woman from Canaan, and that it was only later, after a certain period of time, that Christ and His gospel and the associated blessings became widely available to non-Jews. Is this situation in anyone analogous, or comparable to a more recent situation when the full blessings of the gospel were only available to certain groups, for reasons that seem to have a lot to do with race, but with some a few exceptions being made for people such as Elijah Abel, and with the full blessings of the gospel only becoming fully available to all after a certain period of time?

I’m also wondering if Jacob 5 might be able to contribute something to this discussion. One interpretation of Jacob 5 is that the Lord had different groups of people whom He nourished and nurtured with the gospel in different parts of His vineyard, at different times, and with differing responses. Some groups He seemed to neglect at times, and other groups He seemed to work with more than others. This could be interpreted as the Lord choosing to bring His gospel to certain groups at certain times, and not to everybody at the same time. And it was only after successfully mixing and matching and combining and recombining the roots and branches of the various trees, or groups of people, along with lots of nurturing and nourishing, that the trees of the vineyard really started to produce good quality fruit. And interestingly, when the servant of the Lord of the vineyard questioned the Lord’s practices, in verse 21, in verse 22, “the Lord of the vineyard said unto him: Counsel me not.”

 

This practice of at first keeping separate, and then later mixing and matching and combining different trees, or groups of people as a pre-condition to success seems to be consistent with 2^nd Nephi 29 when the Lord tells us

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 29:7 - 9)

7  Know ye not that there are more nations than one?  Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8  Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word?  Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another?  Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another.  And when the two nations (black and white?) shall run together (as started to happen with the arrival of large numbers of African slaves in the US) the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9  And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure.  And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

This is just a bit of idle speculation on my part – I’ve never paid too much attention to this topic, so I don’t really know if these comments are useful or useless.

[Guest]

On 10/15/2018 at 3:21 PM, Suzie said:

40 Years: Commemorating the 1978 Priesthood and Temple Revelation

On 10/19/2018 at 3:21 PM, Suzie said:

I mentioned that I discussed about the origin of the Priesthood ban many times on this forum because this is not the topic of the thread I started,

It isn't?  Really? Credibility LOST.

[Suzie]

" It isn't?  Really?

If you read the OP (which I think you did) you know the answer for that.

"Credibility LOST."

  It's okay, I am fine if you believe my credibility is lost. But from a debate point of view,  your answer is antagonistic and I dislike that kind of approach to all debates (but particularly debates related to LDS history). I think it is infantile (the back and forth "you said.." "you called me..") Not interested in that kind of discussion (I leave that for Jerry Springer). Hence I use the "ignore" button when needed, so I can discuss points minus the melodramatics). Wish you all the best.

 

[Suzie]

@Just_A_Guy I read your excellent points, will reply to them as soon as I am able, going to get ready for Church.