Reason For Priesthod Ban Being Lifted

[dontagreeljefe]

All revelation is given by God. However most revelations are given because of circumstances that inquire people to ask God about something revelations include hte first vision and word of wisdom. The priesthood one was one of them as well. there were circumstances that led to the president kimball asking about it and prophets from Brigham young to Harold bl lee prayed about it as well and the answer was not yet.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Jason]

I voted none of the above.

Blacks had been ordained in New Zealand, Hawaii, Brazil, and elsewhere decades before the offical "ban" was lifted by "revelation."

Heck, ole' Mrs. Manning (a black woman) was sealed to JS in the SLC temple in 1891!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I voted "it was just time to remove it" with the additional thought that it would have been just as good a time to remove it a century earlier. I believe the other options in the poll (the civil rights movement, the impossibility of figuring out which Brazilians the rule applied to, etc.) only helped the Lord's message finally be heard.

[Guest Ammon]

In the MTC, I was trained that in the premortal life certain souls made choices that resulted in the prohibition on their holding of the priesthood while in their mortal state on the Earth. Those individuals were given black skin so that the holders of the priesthood would know not to give them the priesthood (unless a special circumstance occurred, which it did, where authorization was given by the First Presidency). In 1978, the last of said souls died. Hence, the revelation that all worthy males could hold the priesthood. BTW, the choices may not have necessarily been due to bad behavior. Some souls elected to come to Earth with mental handicapps that retained an IQ level below the age of eight, perhaps due to the fact that they were told their temptations by Satan would be almost unbearable if they came without such a handicapp. Perphaps most the blacks who lived prior to 1978 did not want to risk the added condemnation that comes from sinning while being a holder of the priesthood. Who knows?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Outshined]

I read this just recently. It's not actually doctrine, and has been addressed as such by the Church before. I'll try to provide you a reference.

[Snow]

The poll is problematic, hence I didn't vote, because it doesn't give a selection for what I think is the answer, which is,

Then Elder Kimball began exploring the issue very early and studying it out in his mind back in the 50's and 60's. For example, as an apostle in the early 60's in interviewing a brand new Seventy, he just had one question for the him. What do you thing of the ban on blacks in the priesthood? Imagine how that would put a new GA on the spot. How could you answer it without guessing what the apostle wanted to hear? But the point is that Elder Kimball really wanted to know. He was studying it out in his own mind, trying to divine the will of the Lord. He did the same type of thing with others.

I believe that there was a lot of inertia against a change - a deep rooted belief that prior Brethren must have been inspired in the ban and maintenance of the ban so it took a lot to overcome the inertia, and then plant the seed that would take root in the minds of Elder Kimballs colleagues. The Church is not dictatorial at that level. Great worth is placed collegiality - agreement and harmony. Other's had to be inspired as was then President Kimball so that when he announced it, harmony could be maintained.

Ammon,

This is not a dig at you personally, but what you say was taught in the MTC was idiotic at best. Were there any who actually believed it? I hope not.

I had a rule of thumb for a few years during and after my mission that served me well.... if you learned it in the mission field, it was probably bunk. Your example shows why.

[srm]

In the MTC, I was trained that in the premortal life certain souls made choices that resulted in the prohibition on their holding of the priesthood while in their mortal state on the Earth.  Those individuals were given black skin so that the holders of the priesthood would know not to give them the priesthood (unless a special circumstance occurred, which it did, where authorization was given by the First Presidency).  In 1978, the last of said souls died.  Hence, the revelation that all worthy males could hold the priesthood. 

'Trained by whom?' This kind of 'answer' come about when people try to explain the reason for something for which we don't know the reason. It is not a part of our theology. Many people at all levels of the the church may have believed some version of this but does not hold up to doctrinal scrutiny.

BTW, the choices may not have necessarily been due to bad behavior.  Some souls elected to come to Earth with mental handicapps that retained an IQ level below the age of eight, perhaps due to the fact that they were told their temptations by Satan would be almost unbearable if they came without such a handicapp.

Then how could they be tested? heck, that would be taking the easy way out. I think that this is another skewed version of our theology that those with certain handicaps or children who die before the age of accountabiliy are heirs of the celestial kingdom.

Perphaps most the blacks who lived prior to 1978 did not want to risk the added condemnation that comes from sinning while being a holder of the priesthood. Who knows?

[srm]

The poll is problematic, hence I didn't vote, because it doesn't give a selection for what I think is the answer,

Si Si

which is,

Then Elder Kimball began exploring the issue very early and studying it out in his mind back in the 50's and 60's. For example, as an apostle in the early 60's in interviewing a brand new Seventy, he just had one question for the him. What do you thing of the ban on blacks in the priesthood? Imagine how that would put a new GA on the spot. How could you answer it without guessing what the apostle wanted to hear? But the point is that Elder Kimball really wanted to know. He was studying it out in his own mind, trying to divine the will of the Lord. He did the same type of thing with others.

This is very interesting. What is you source?

I believe that there was a lot of inertia against a change - a deep rooted belief that prior Brethren must have been inspired in the ban and maintenance of the ban so it took a lot to overcome the inertia, and then plant the seed that would take root in the minds of Elder Kimballs colleagues.

Who is to say that they (or at least some of them) were not inspired in the maintenance of the ban?

The Church is not dictatorial at that level. Great worth is placed collegiality - agreement and harmony. Other's had to be inspired as was then President Kimball so that when he announced it, harmony could be maintained.

[srm]

The poll is problematic, hence I didn't vote, because it doesn't give a selection for what I think is the answer,

Si Si

which is,

Then Elder Kimball began exploring the issue very early and studying it out in his mind back in the 50's and 60's. For example, as an apostle in the early 60's in interviewing a brand new Seventy, he just had one question for the him. What do you thing of the ban on blacks in the priesthood? Imagine how that would put a new GA on the spot. How could you answer it without guessing what the apostle wanted to hear? But the point is that Elder Kimball really wanted to know. He was studying it out in his own mind, trying to divine the will of the Lord. He did the same type of thing with others.

This is very interesting. What is you source?

I believe that there was a lot of inertia against a change - a deep rooted belief that prior Brethren must have been inspired in the ban and maintenance of the ban so it took a lot to overcome the inertia, and then plant the seed that would take root in the minds of Elder Kimballs colleagues.

Who is to say that they (or at least some of them) were not inspired in the maintenance of the ban?

The Church is not dictatorial at that level. Great worth is placed collegiality - agreement and harmony. Other's had to be inspired as was then President Kimball so that when he announced it, harmony could be maintained.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

:)

[Luzia]

I wish I knew better who McConkie is.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

:)

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

:)

[Luzia]

Thank you.

But I have seen there is a bit of controversy about his doctrine, am I right or wrong? If I am right, why is it?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Apr 20 2004, 04:17 PM

Bruce R. McConkie wrote that "doctrine" in a book called "Mormon Doctrine".  Supposedly the book has been re-released leaving that stuff out.  But I don't know for sure.

As an Apostle, does he have authority to create doctrine?

No, he did not. His book had that title, but it did not mean that he created doctrine. In fact, the title page says, "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility."

I recommend the book; it is an excellent resource. He did re-release the book in 1966, with a revision on blacks and the priesthood. I can post the entries from the current version (the one I have) if you'd like.

Here is some reading on the subject:

http://www.blacklds.org

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...s_prejudice.htm

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai080.html

-Outshined

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Outshined]

The old version apparently had some speculation on whether behavior in the pre-existence determined our place in this life, i.e. skin color.

The entry for "Negroes":

Negroes    As with all men, Negroes are the mortal descendants of Adam and the spirit children of the Eternal Father. They come to earth to gain mortal bodies and be subject to the probationary experiences of this present life.In the providences of the Lord, the gospel and all its attendant blessings are offered to one nation and people after another. During Jesus' mortal ministry he and his disciples took the gospel to the house of Israel only; after his resurrection the word went forth to the Gentiles also. Those who live when the gospel is not on earth may receive its blessings in the spirit world after death.In all past ages and until recent times in this dispensation, the Lord did not offer the priesthood to the Negroes. However, on June 1, 1978, in the Salt Lake Temple, in the presence of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation from the Lord directing that the gospel and the priesthood should now go to all men without reference to race or color.This means that worthy males of all races can now receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, perform ordinances, and hold positions of presidency and responsibility. It means that members of all races may now be married in the temple, although interracial marriages are discouraged by the Brethren, and that the full blessings of the gospel may be made available to their ancestors through vicarious temple ordinances. It also means that Negro members of the Church may now perform missionary service and should bear the burdens of the kingdom equally with all other members of the Church.This new revelation is one of the signs of the times. It opens the door to the spread of the gospel among all people before the Second Coming in fulfilment of many scriptural promises. It has been received with joy and rejoicing throughout the Church and is one of the evidences of the divinity of the Lord's great latter-day work.The official document announcing the new revelation, signed by the First Presidency (Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney) and dated June 8, 1978, is as follows:"As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords."Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance."He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness."We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known His will for the blessing of all His children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of His authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel."

By the way, in case you were wondering, I don't type that fast; I have GospeLink 2001, which contains several thousand LDS books on disk, so I just cut-and-pasted it for you. If you don't have it, I really recommend it!

-Outshined

[Snow]

Originally posted by srm@Apr 20 2004, 02:00 PM

The poll is problematic, hence I didn't vote, because it doesn't give a selection for what I think is the answer,

Si Si

which is,

Then Elder Kimball began exploring the issue very early and studying it out in his mind back in the 50's and 60's. For example, as an apostle in the early 60's in interviewing a brand new Seventy, he just had one question for the him. What do you thing of the ban on blacks in the priesthood? Imagine how that would put a new GA on the spot. How could you answer it without guessing what the apostle wanted to hear? But the point is that Elder Kimball really wanted to know. He was studying it out in his own mind, trying to divine the will of the Lord. He did the same type of thing with others.

This is very interesting. What is you source?

I believe that there was a lot of inertia against a change - a deep rooted belief that prior Brethren must have been inspired in the ban and maintenance of the ban so it took a lot to overcome the inertia, and then plant the seed that would take root in the minds of Elder Kimballs colleagues.

Who is to say that they (or at least some of them) were not inspired in the maintenance of the ban?

I was at a lecture in Salt Lake. The lecturers were authors who had written biographies about LDS stalwarts. Michael Quinn who has written two books about J. Ruben Clark, Edward Kimball, son, who wrote the biography of Spencer Kimball along with Andrew Kimball, grandson (actually I think it was Edward who spoke but can't recall for sure) and another author who had written about someone else.

Questions arose about the priesthood ban and Quinn and Brother Kimball answered them as I described. A person in the audience asked if President Lee has stood in the way of lifting the ban earlier. Quinn took the question and thought for a while how he could best answer the question while being sensitive to some inside type informations he had received. He then told the story that while President Lee was president, Quinn was at a x-mas party and asked a grandson or nephew of President Lee if he knew if the president had prayed about the ban. The person answered Quinn that it was his understanding from having listened to President Lee, that his current stance on the ban (maintaining the ban) was inspired.

Fast forward a couple years and the person in question approached Quinn and apologized to him for having given him incorrect information. The grandson or nephew had since learned that not only had President Lee not obtained the will of the Lord on the matter, he had never been inclined to try.... in essence an uninspired desire for the status quo.

There- you have a 3rd hand account from me and I don't recall all the exact details that I heard from Brother Kimball and Dr. Quinn, but I am representing the key points pretty accurately I think. I didn't hear what the family member said to Quinn or what President Benson said to the family member but Quinn seems to me to be an honest man and excellent historian.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Apr 20 2004, 03:26 PM

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think the position of the Church is that if it is not in the Scriptures, it is not real doctrine. So even though McConkie wrote it in his book, it is not doctrine.

Unless it comes from the scriptures or an official promulgation of the Brethren, it would be an explanation of doctrine, not doctrine itself, except to the extent that it agrees with truth, but it does not officially create truth.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Apr 20 2004, 03:27 PM

Oh, I didn't realize that he revised it himself. So he changed his opinion on this subject?

He said this:

"In publishing this Second Edition, as is common with major encyclopedic-type works, experience has shown the wisdom of making some changes, clarifications, and additions." That's all.

[Tr2]

All revelation is given by God

True, but this wasn't a revelation. It was a smart and logical move by good businessmen.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Snow@Apr 19 2004, 06:17 PM

Ammon,

This is not a dig at you personally, but what you say was taught in the MTC was idiotic at best. Were there any who actually believed it? I hope not.

I had a rule of thumb for a few years during and after my mission that served me well.... if you learned it in the mission field, it was probably bunk. Your example shows why.

I take issue with your view. Why would such an explanation be "idiotic at best?" Do realized the force of the words you just used, "idiotic at best?" The principles arose from various reputable LDS General Authorities. Is it doctrine? No. I never said it was. But "idiotic at best?" That is far too harsh a description. This explanation makes sense. It is logical. It is accurate? Who knows? But why do you think it "idiotic at best?"