Priesthood timing

[LDSGator]

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

Nothing Wilcox said was offensive, unless you're looking for a reason to be offended. The fact that Jana Reiss found Wilcox's words offensive is pretty good evidence that Wilcox said nothing wrong.

 I don’t know what he said, nor did I say it was offensive. He’s the one who apologized twice for it, not me. So obviously he thought it was offensive and worthy of apologizing over. Or else he wouldn’t have apologized. Never in my life have I seen someone apologize for something they didn’t think was problematic.  
 

 I was simply quoting what happened. 

 

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

On the whole, people were very excited and happy about it. I was told by a sister who was a missionary in the US South in 1978 that many Southern members were unhappy about it. Don't know if that was a widespread feeling in the South or just in her area, or perhaps just her perception.

 Makes sense. I don’t think the church was very big in the south back then. Heck, it’s not that popular in 2024 in the south! 
 

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You can Google Darius Gray for more details on his experience and reaction, and his collection of reactions from other Black members. But here's an intro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_Gray

Thanks. 

Edited January 29 by LDSGator

[NeuroTypical]

7 hours ago, zil2 said:

It my digital version of JoD, it's in volume 11 and says it was on page 272, was written/said by Brigham Young on 19 August 1866.  It's on page 255 of the PDF I created when I exported this volume out of the Win3.1 "LDS Infobases" software.

When I search your link for "sin of blackness", it takes me to page 272, which matches up with what my version says.

Thanks!  I always like to go to the source, and get some context.  

I note this address was given one year after the US Civil War ended.  Some quick googling and wiki-ing reinforce what I thought I had been taught earlier: Post-civil war Black Christians were all about self-segregation, and the LDS church was one of a very, very short list of "white churches" that would even have them as members. 

From that lens, such statements as Brigham's were markedly progressive for the era.  

Anyway: 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29 by NeuroTypical

[JohnsonJones]

On 1/28/2024 at 3:19 PM, laronius said:

Brigham Young: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

I had heard that first part before and there are differing opinions as to whether he was just expressing opinion or not. But the second half about when the blacks would receive the priesthood is new to me. Is that how it happened? Did they not receive the priesthood until it was deemed fulfilled that the priesthood had been sufficiently offered to non-black races first? I don't know how that would be measured but I thought it was interesting, in lieu of no official answer.

If I understand you correctly, this is exactly how it happened.

The Priesthood had the chance to be offered to all those who would be part of the groups to be offered it first, and after that had been fulfilled, the priesthood was opened to others.

Of interest, this could also be seen in lieu of another item Brigham Young had instituted (but I won't go into detail of all the areas of which this was discussed or pursued due to the location and wording of it) where he had Saints pledge the Lord's vengeance on those who murdered the prophet up to the third and fourth generations.  That would have ALSO been fulfilled (And thus ended as anything that was remarked about it) around the same time and should have been done away with (as it was) in the ensuing years (I believe up until the beginning of the 90s?? decades sometimes meld together) along with other items in reference to it.

I'll read the rest of the thread to see if anyone says anything that sways me differently though.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

This is all interesting on a sort of academic level, I suppose. On a personal level, I am curious why the Priesthood ban was in place—especially since it's obvious that a man of black African descent could hold the Priesthood before 1978, as demonstrated by Elijah Abel and others. The video you reference suggests a fascinating possibility, one I'd like to investigate.

But curiosity notwithstanding, my main personal concern is the increasingly common belief that the Priesthood ban itself was some sort of horrible mistake, an unqualified evil that somehow infiltrated the Church under Brigham Young. This belief I consider to be tantamount to apostasy. It is not merely disloyal (though it is quite clearly that). It is pandering and obsequious, a capitulation to political correctness and an open demonstration of shame at the mockery from those in the great and spacious building.

We should be better than that. Nephi showed us the correct response to such mockery. It's high time we started to engage more actively and regularly in "heed[ing] them not".

Personal thoughts.. 

I do not know personally what initiated it, but I have my suspicions it started to come to light when Joseph Smith was receiving revelation in translating the Bible (Old Testament) as well as when he was having revelatory inspiration in regards to his translation of scrolls which led to the Book of Abraham.  

Though the Church has an ESSAY (Which I may remind people, is actually not written by General Authorities and is normally from people like yours truly and others who study out the item, it is/was then approved for posting on the site and thus is actually NOT doctrine, nor even policy per se, but informational for your growth and knowledge), the actual doctrines of the church on the issue is not so clear cut.

The Pearl of Great Price on which passages the ideas of Brigham Young (and even Joseph Smith's though we do not focus so much on his later ideas on this) support this idea of a curse were NOT doctrine or scripture at the time, but the prophet would have been well aware of them and this is why I feel his thoughts first pondered on these and received revelation accordingly.

These passages became scripture (and thus doctrine) later, and are STILL considered officially scripture and Doctrine today in the Pearl of Great Price.  They are scriptures which some find hard and cause some to stumble due to the pride they have in putting modern values over revelation and scripture.  

[Vort]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

He’s the one who apologized twice for it, not me. So obviously he thought it was offensive and worthy of apologizing over. Or else he wouldn’t have apologized. Never in my life have I seen someone apologize for something they didn’t think was problematic.

My observation is that this is not even remotely true. In the last 20 or so years, people have started apologizing all the time when feathers get ruffled, even when they don't believe they said anything wrong or untrue. The apology is more like, "I'm sorry I said something that upset you," and not necessarily, "I'm sorry I said such a patently offensive thing." Nice, compliant people do this kind of apologizing quite often. I used to. I don't any more. I will apologize if I was wrong or of I spoke out of turn (and if I know that I was wrong or spoke out of turn). Otherwise, if they take offense, that's their problem, not mine.

Brad Wilcox has always struck me as a friendly person. My assumption is that he was apologizing for bruising the tender feelings of the whiner crowd, not because he actually believed he said something offensive in God's ears.

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Brad Wilcox has always struck me as a friendly person. My assumption is that he was apologizing for bruising the tender feelings of the whiner crowd, not because he actually believed he said something offensive in God's ears.

Maybe. I can’t read his mind either, so when someone apologizes twice, I assume it’s because they are genuinely sorry. If it’s not, then he lacks the backbone to stand by what he said and his apology is fake. Which is disturbing. 
 

It’s always interesting when someone never apologizes, and it’s never a good sign.  I admire him for apologizing. 

Edited January 29 by LDSGator

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Maybe. I can’t read his mind either, so when someone apologizes twice, I assume it’s because they are genuinely sorry. If it’s not, then he lacks the backbone to stand by what he said and his apology is fake. Which is disturbing.

Not so, at least not necessarily. Wilcox might have been genuinely sorry that he vocalized the thoughts he did, either because of how he spoke them or because he thought that he ought to have kept his views to himself (or both). Apologizing for speaking the truth is not necessarily a sign of weakness; it may just be a recognition that sometimes it's better to keep your trap shut rather than cast your pearls (as you believe them to be) before swine and then be all surprised or upset when the hogs trample the pearls and attack you.

[LDSGator]

Just now, Vort said:

Not so, at least not necessarily. Wilcox might have been genuinely sorry that he vocalized the thoughts he did, either because of how he spoke them or because he thought that he ought to have kept his views to himself (or both). Apologizing for speaking the truth is not necessarily a sign of weakness; it may just be a recognition that sometimes it's better to keep your trap shut rather than cast your pearls (as you believe them to be) before swine and then be all surprised or upset when the hogs trample the pearls and attack you.

Okay. 

[Ironhold]

A few things I've noted that critics of the church tend to overlook - 

1. The Extermination Order wasn't officially repealed until 1976

2. The last European power didn't relinquish its last colonial claim in Africa until early 1978

Could it be that, simply put, these two things needed to happen first before humanity was ready for it all to happen?

[laronius]

7 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Never in my life have I seen someone apologize for something they didn’t think was problematic.  
 

Most married men would disagree with you.

[NeuroTypical]

Yep, from the "learning how to be married" crowd, this is what I've learned about the word "sorry":

Sorry 1: Oooh - I said/did something quite wrong and it had a negative impact.  I'm truly remorseful, regretful, apologetic, and sorry.  Consider this the first step of my overall repentance process where I promise to rid myself of whatever problematic beliefs or thoughts or character defects that had me say/do something so insensitive in the first place.  (Excellent choice whenever it's genuine.  You don't have to ham it up that much to mean it.)

Sorry 2: Oooh - I didn't mean to hurt you.  You misunderstood me.  I apologize, I could have said/did that in a different way.  My intentions are good, just the execution was bad. Can I clarify or try again?  (Good for anyone who wants to follow the 2nd great commandment, but you think you're right.)

Sorry 3: Oooh - that came back to bite me.  That didn't get the reaction I wanted at all.  I'm sorry I ended up on the receiving end of negative blowback for my words/actions.  I am experiencing discomfort and want it to stop, so I'll say I'm sorry so you'll stop being the cause of my discomfort.  (Popular with all narcissists, people who have no empathy, and people lacking in self-esteem.  Also occasionally popular with most of us on occasion.)

Sorry 4: Yeah, sorry a [insert insult or negative judgment here] like you got offended.  What a jerk you must be, to get offended by what I just said/did.  Your reaction says an awful lot about you, and nothing about me.   (A great way to argue with people when you're not feeling like following the 2nd great commandment, or you've got a passive-aggressive personality style, or HR is forcing you to apologize or get fired but you don't care either way.  This was Justin Timberlake's apology after ripping off Janet Jackson's top and exposing her breast on national television during that superbowl halftime show.)

Unless you know what definition the person is using, then you don't know what they're saying.  And people also might be trying to convey one of those, but they don't really mean it.  It can be hard to judge.  Mel Gibson, after going on a drunken driving binge complete with a massive rant about how Jews are the problem, did the best version of definition #1 I've seen in hollywood.  But I don't know if he meant it or not.)

Edited January 30 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

Dang, NT, that's a pretty good analysis right there.

[CV75]

20 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Personal thoughts.. 

I do not know personally what initiated it, but I have my suspicions it started to come to light when Joseph Smith was receiving revelation in translating the Bible (Old Testament) as well as when he was having revelatory inspiration in regards to his translation of scrolls which led to the Book of Abraham.  

Though the Church has an ESSAY (Which I may remind people, is actually not written by General Authorities and is normally from people like yours truly and others who study out the item, it is/was then approved for posting on the site and thus is actually NOT doctrine, nor even policy per se, but informational for your growth and knowledge), the actual doctrines of the church on the issue is not so clear cut.

The Pearl of Great Price on which passages the ideas of Brigham Young (and even Joseph Smith's though we do not focus so much on his later ideas on this) support this idea of a curse were NOT doctrine or scripture at the time, but the prophet would have been well aware of them and this is why I feel his thoughts first pondered on these and received revelation accordingly.

These passages became scripture (and thus doctrine) later, and are STILL considered officially scripture and Doctrine today in the Pearl of Great Price.  They are scriptures which some find hard and cause some to stumble due to the pride they have in putting modern values over revelation and scripture.  

Of course, there is scripture and then there is the meaning and deeper meaning of the scripture. I don't believe the Lord holds His servants accountable for things they are not expected to believe, know or understand at the time of the mortal service, any more than He expected the brother of Jared to know whether He had flesh and blood. The brother of Jared was not expected to be correct in his knowledge and belief, and the scripture shows that the correct understanding is that the Lord would take upon Himself flesh and blood.

"And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood. And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood..." The Lord, because of his exceeding faith, clarified to him the difference between what he thought he saw (a living finger) and what he really saw (the future finger); the difference between the premortal Lord and the Lord in the tabernacle of His mortal ministry (verse 16).