Reason For Priesthod Ban Being Lifted

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Ammon+Apr 20 2004, 04:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ammon @ Apr 20 2004, 04:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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?"

The environment of the mission field seems to encourage people to compete as to who can be the most hard-core. There seems to be a race to declare allegiance to doctrines which seem the most inconsistent with a kind and loving God, yet are true "because the Lord's servants said so." It may come from the fact that the mission field is still a male-dominated field, and so emphasizes the archetypical male attributes of stern justice and firm, inflexible adherence to Revealed Truth.

The result is that missionaries are more likely than others to accept those speculations of Church authorities on racial questions that seem the harshest, than are normal people.

Also, the mission field does tend to de-emphasize individual thought in favor of conformity and obedience. In dress, in access to written materials, and in routine, everybody is encouraged to think generally alike. That leads to potentially excessive deference to the leadership, including things the leadership has said based on their own knowledge rather than by inspiration.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[srm]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Apr 20 2004, 03:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Apr 20 2004, 03:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Apr 20 2004, 01:42 PM

'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.

According to this wacky Evangelical comic...

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0061/0061_01.asp

...which I posted on the General Discussion forum, 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 does not have the authority to create doctrine. More importantly, he wasn't an Apostle when he wrote it.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 20 2004, 04:38 PM

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?"

The idea seems made up and fantastical to me (in the final analysis, all religious matters seem fantastical). I used to believe some crazy stuff when I was younger but that bit is too far out, even for me as a kid. It makes no sense to me.

[srm]

Originally posted by Outshined+Apr 20 2004, 03:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Apr 20 2004, 03:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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

It was revised after the first edition but the revisions you speak of were not made until after 1978.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Apr 20 2004, 04:27 PM

All revelation is given by God

True, but this wasn't a revelation.

Was too.

Furthermore, my rebuttal to your rebuttal is more better powerful because it has fewer words.

[Tr2]

Do you only come here to pick fights? Go away.

[Snow]

No, you are.

[Guest Starsky]

LOL

[Cal]

Now children!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Apr 19 2004, 05:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Apr 19 2004, 05:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Apr 19 2004, 04:54 PM

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...

I didn't think that was ever Doctrine? I thought it was just written by McConkie or someone.

Still, I suppose they could have taught it to you.

I think you are right.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Starsky+Apr 24 2004, 10:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starsky @ Apr 24 2004, 10:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Taoist_Saint@Apr 19 2004, 05:22 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Apr 19 2004, 04:54 PM

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...

I didn't think that was ever Doctrine? I thought it was just written by McConkie or someone.

Still, I suppose they could have taught it to you.

I think you are right.

If it is not the doctrine. What is? Why, according to official doctrine, was the priesthood withheld from African Americans until the exact year of 1978? Remember, the revelation was from GOD. Thus, the date was not haphazard, nor was the doctrine. I challenge you, all of you, to find the official doctrine on this subject and then, and only then, will I consider my position, which was provided by an instructor at the MTC, to not be doctrine. Trust me; it is the ONLY explanation that makes spiritual sense. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. If my position isn't official doctrine, what is?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Luzia@Apr 20 2004, 03:19 PM

I wish I knew better who McConkie is.

I can tell you a little about him. He went to U of U law school, married the daughter of Joseph Fielding Smith and was a seventy and became an apostle after his father-in-law became the prophet. He wrote a book called Mormon Doctrine (which isn't) and which contained stuff like what you read above, and which president McKay told him not to publish. He revised it and published it anyway after President McKay died. (So much for respect for the word of a prophet).

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Apr 20 2004, 04:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Apr 20 2004, 04:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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.

He also took out his reference to the CAtholic church as the "great and abdominal church"--I guess it gave him heart burn.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ammon+Apr 27 2004, 06:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ammon @ Apr 27 2004, 06:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Starsky@Apr 24 2004, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by -Taoist_Saint@Apr 19 2004, 05:22 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Apr 19 2004, 04:54 PM

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...

I didn't think that was ever Doctrine? I thought it was just written by McConkie or someone.

Still, I suppose they could have taught it to you.

I think you are right.

If it is not the doctrine. What is? Why, according to official doctrine, was the priesthood withheld from African Americans until the exact year of 1978? Remember, the revelation was from GOD. Thus, the date was not haphazard, nor was the doctrine. I challenge you, all of you, to find the official doctrine on this subject and then, and only then, will I consider my position, which was provided by an instructor at the MTC, to not be doctrine. Trust me; it is the ONLY explanation that makes spiritual sense. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. If my position isn't official doctrine, what is?

I'll tell you what makes sense to me. Brigham Young was a racial bigot. He considered Black to be pretty close to animals--at least subhuman. This is not speculation. Read what he says about them in JOD. In a conference around 1859 he announce to the general congregation the doctrine of denying the priesthood to the blacks. The doctrine stuck (unlike the Adam-God and Blood atonement doctrines). Given that this supposedly came from God, it took a lot of pressure to convince the church leaders that the "revelation" to BY should be reversed (especially since many of the GA's--and I will refrain from saying most, in the 1950, 1960s and 1970's gave evidence of being racial bigots themselves. I can refer to Mark E. Peterson, JFS and BRM.

So, until the church was faced with 1)losing its tax free status (Minnesota SC decision) and others to follow 2) So many in Brazil being baptized who had african roots 3) BYU being boycotted by others schools, it didn't change its policy.

BTW--I know from a pretty good 2nd hand (not 3r or 4th) source, that Pres. McKay was making noises in the direction of giving the priesthood to blacks, but he died before anything happened. And of course, the two that followed him would not be expected to have the same kind of more liberal (shall we say enlightened) leanings as President Kimball.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Ammon+Apr 27 2004, 06:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ammon @ Apr 27 2004, 06:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Starsky@Apr 24 2004, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by -Taoist_Saint@Apr 19 2004, 05:22 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Apr 19 2004, 04:54 PM

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...

I didn't think that was ever Doctrine? I thought it was just written by McConkie or someone.

Still, I suppose they could have taught it to you.

I think you are right.

If it is not the doctrine. What is? Why, according to official doctrine, was the priesthood withheld from African Americans until the exact year of 1978? Remember, the revelation was from GOD. Thus, the date was not haphazard, nor was the doctrine. I challenge you, all of you, to find the official doctrine on this subject and then, and only then, will I consider my position, which was provided by an instructor at the MTC, to not be doctrine. Trust me; it is the ONLY explanation that makes spiritual sense. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. If my position isn't official doctrine, what is?

During a taped interview on August 16th, 1978, Elder LeGrand Richards of the Quorum of the Twelve was asked if the Less Valiant Theory was a doctrine of the Church. He replied:

“Well, we don’t want to get [understand] that as a doctrine. Think of it as you will. You know, Paul said, ‘Now we see in part and we know in part; we see through a glass darkly. When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be down away, then we will see as we are seen, and know as we are known.’ Now the Church’s attitude today is to prefer to leave it until we know. The Lord has never indicated that the black skin came because of being less faithful.†(The Segregation of Israel, p.187 emphases added)

The official doctrine is that there is no official doctrine on this subject.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 27 2004, 06:30 PM

Trust me; it is the ONLY explanation that makes spiritual sense.

Naw... Trust ME; there is NO explanation that makes spiritual sense. It was a doctrine of man and President Kimball saw that it was discontinued. God had nothing to do with it.

[srm]

If it is not the doctrine.  What is?  Why, according to official doctrine, was the priesthood withheld from African Americans until the exact year of 1978?  Remember, the revelation was from GOD.  Thus, the date was not haphazard, nor was the doctrine.  I challenge you, all of you, to find the official doctrine on this subject and then, and only then, will I consider my position, which was provided by an instructor at the MTC, to not be doctrine.  Trust me; it is the ONLY explanation that makes spiritual sense.  If you can prove me wrong, please do so.  If my position isn't official doctrine, what is?

How about this,

""From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that [blacks] were not to receive the priesthood for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man." (the First Presidency, 1969)"

Regardless of what you MTC teacher might have said...This is what the prophet said. I'd say, theories notwithstanding, we don't know why there was a ban.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+Apr 29 2004, 07:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Apr 29 2004, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Apr 27 2004, 06:30 PM

Trust me; it is the ONLY explanation that makes spiritual sense.

Naw... Trust ME; there is NO explanation that makes spiritual sense. It was a doctrine of man and President Kimball saw that it was discontinued. God had nothing to do with it.

You go, girl!

[Cal]

Originally posted by srm@Apr 30 2004, 10:25 AM

If it is not the doctrine.  What is?  Why, according to official doctrine, was the priesthood withheld from African Americans until the exact year of 1978?  Remember, the revelation was from GOD.  Thus, the date was not haphazard, nor was the doctrine.  I challenge you, all of you, to find the official doctrine on this subject and then, and only then, will I consider my position, which was provided by an instructor at the MTC, to not be doctrine.  Trust me; it is the ONLY explanation that makes spiritual sense.  If you can prove me wrong, please do so.  If my position isn't official doctrine, what is?

How about this,

""From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that [blacks] were not to receive the priesthood for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man." (the First Presidency, 1969)"

Regardless of what you MTC teacher might have said...This is what the prophet said. I'd say, theories notwithstanding, we don't know why there was a ban.

Joseph Smith? Taught What? Where did Joseph Smith say that African Blacks could not hold the priesthood? Furthermore, JS ordained at least one black man.

The origin of this despicable doctrine came from Brigham Young. He gave the "revelation" in a conference around 1858 ---you can find the reference in one of M. Quinn's books. I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

By the way----IMHO doctrines that make so little sense as to require the explanation that "only God knows" are probably as bogus as a 3 dollar bill.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Apr 29 2004, 06:21 PM

I'll tell you what makes sense to me. Brigham Young was a racial bigot. He considered Black to be pretty close to animals--at least subhuman.

This is not speculation. Read what he says about them in JOD. In a conference around 1859 he announce to the general congregation the doctrine of denying the priesthood to the blacks. The doctrine stuck (unlike the Adam-God and Blood atonement doctrines). Given that this supposedly came from God, it took a lot of pressure to convince the church leaders that the "revelation" to BY should be reversed (especially since many of the GA's--and I will refrain from saying most, in the 1950, 1960s and 1970's gave evidence of being racial bigots themselves. I can refer to Mark E. Peterson, JFS and BRM.

So, until the church was faced with 1)losing its tax free status (Minnesota SC decision) and others to follow 2) So many in Brazil being baptized who had african roots 3) BYU being boycotted by others schools, it didn't change its policy.

BTW--I know from a pretty good 2nd hand (not 3r or 4th) source, that Pres. McKay was making noises in the direction of giving the priesthood to blacks, but he died before anything happened. And of course, the two that followed him would not be expected to have the same kind of more liberal (shall we say enlightened) leanings as President Kimball.

Can't you come up with something a little more original and true?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Starsky+May 2 2004, 09:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starsky @ May 2 2004, 09:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Apr 29 2004, 06:21 PM

I'll tell you what makes sense to me.  Brigham Young was a racial bigot. He considered Black to be pretty close to animals--at least subhuman.

This is not speculation. Read what he says about them in JOD.  In a conference around 1859 he announce to the general congregation the doctrine of denying the priesthood to the blacks. The doctrine stuck (unlike the Adam-God and Blood atonement doctrines). Given that this supposedly came from God, it took a lot of pressure to convince the church leaders that the "revelation" to BY should be reversed (especially since many of the GA's--and I will refrain from saying most, in the 1950, 1960s and 1970's gave evidence of being racial bigots themselves. I can refer to Mark E. Peterson, JFS and BRM.

So, until the church was faced with  1)losing its tax free status (Minnesota SC decision) and others to follow  2) So many in Brazil being baptized who had african roots  3) BYU being boycotted by others schools,  it didn't change its policy.

BTW--I know from a pretty good 2nd hand (not 3r or 4th) source, that Pres. McKay was making noises in the direction of giving the priesthood to blacks, but he died before anything happened. And of course, the two that followed him would not be expected to have the same kind of more liberal (shall we say enlightened) leanings as President Kimball.

Can't you come up with something a little more original and true?

Hollow assertions. Tell me, specifically, what is untrue in this posting. Could it be.....

1) JS forbade ordaining american blacks

2) BY announcing the doctrine of not giving blacks the priesthood

3) The DOM did not consider giving blacks the priesthood

OR WHAT?

[Aristotle]

Again...having voted with the "rank and file"...

none of the above it was just time to remove it.

[GRR8]

Like I said before: Allof of em want it both ways. Thats what happens when you blindly accept all the doctrines of Govt, Religion, Science, and philosophy,,,they all have errent and illogical teachings. ALL OF THEM! All Religions, All Govts, all Sciences, and all philosophies. There isnt an exception in the bunch. Not one. Every church, every temple, every school, every government, every society, every planet and civilization in every galaxy and universe. Even the Gods made mistakes over the past thirteen trillion years. They werent perfect either. So to all of you who are losing sleep over this stuff, believe me. Dont worry about it. Were all gonna die no matter what we do. Enjoy a day worry free. Contemplate nothing once in awhile. Youll sleep much better and feel much healthier.

[srm]