The priesthood and Black african men

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, mikbone said:

No good will come from defending past racism.

 

Perfectly said.

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, mikbone said:

No good will come from defending past racism.

Only evil will come from evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

[Ruben]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

 

Brigham Young was a prophet of God. If Brigham Young instituted a Church-wide policy of such magnitude, then it was clearly the will of God. Those who "blame" Brigham Young for the policy and call him racist are on the wrong side of the issue. I will stand with Brother Brigham, whom I am sure was a true prophet. I don't know why the policy was instituted, and unlike some (even in this venue), I will not pretend to such knowledge.

This introduces another principle, namely:
"Are prophets infallible?" 
Perhaps we can believe that Brigham Young was a prophet and yet still accept that he made a mistake. Prophets are not infallible, after all they are human and as the ancients said "errare humanum est". 

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, Ruben said:

This introduces another principle, namely:
"Are prophets infallible?" 
Perhaps we can believe that Brigham Young was a prophet and yet still accept that he made a mistake. Prophets are not infallible, after all they are human and as the ancients said "errare humanum est". 

Has nothing to do with prophetic infallibility. It has to do with what God wants for His kingdom. President Woodruff was quite clear in teaching that a prophet would be taken (i.e. would die) before he would be allowed to lead the Church astray.

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Ruben said:

This introduces another principle, namely:
"Are prophets infallible?" 
Perhaps we can believe that Brigham Young was a prophet and yet still accept that he made a mistake. Prophets are not infallible, after all they are human and as the ancients said "errare humanum est". 

All humanity is fallible, but as faith grows in the earth, so does the kingdom of God on earth. The Lord would not have us run faster than we are able. Nothing has interfered with the keys of the kingdom exercised by the prophets and the salvation extended by virtue of the ordinances and covenants. However quickly or slowly we build, the Lord will come when the Father tells Him to. Judging (and by extension condemning, or forgiving for that matter) any prophet for not yet having what we have attained is prideful.

This is not a matter of learning from past mistakes on a particular point of doctrine or policy. Whoever might have done that finished the job before 1978, and we are too far ahead to armchair quarterback. I think this is a matter of letting the light shine and expand in darkness. The only option is to look forward in faith.

This is also not a matter of who struggled with the ban in the 50s-70s  being honored as "on the right side of history" -- I think any who contended over it lacked a spiritually productive perspective and certainly did not aid the kingdom. Those who look back and do are even worse.

[mikbone]

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.... It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.

- Bruce R McConkie, August 18, 1978. All Are Alike Unto God (Speech). A SYMPOSIUM ON THE BOOK OF MORMON, The Second Annual Church Educational System Religious Educator's Symposium. BYU

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I’m not sure those of African descent care what word is used.  

Some of them very much do; as evidenced by the perennial demands that the Church apologize for the policy and suggestions that its more recent statements (including the Gospel Topics essay) “don’t go far enough”.

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Some of them very much do; as evidenced by the perennial demands that the Church apologize for the policy and suggestions that its more recent statements (including the Gospel Topics essay) “don’t go far enough”.

That’s understandable. If the roles were reversed I’m almost certain white people would be whining and demanding the same. 

[Just_A_Guy]

50 minutes ago, Ruben said:

This introduces another principle, namely:
"Are prophets infallible?" 
Perhaps we can believe that Brigham Young was a prophet and yet still accept that he made a mistake. Prophets are not infallible, after all they are human and as the ancients said "errare humanum est". 

How does this play into my earlier post about President McKay, who *wanted* to end the ban, being expressly denied permission to do so?

14 minutes ago, mikbone said:

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.... It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.

- Bruce R McConkie, August 18, 1978. All Are Alike Unto God (Speech). A SYMPOSIUM ON THE BOOK OF MORMON, The Second Annual Church Educational System Religious Educator's Symposium. BYU

Interestingly, in that same talk McConkie continues to embrace the ban itself as having been part of the Lord’s plan that the Gospel goes forth to different people at different times.

[LDSGator]

 

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Some of them very much do; as evidenced by the perennial demands that the Church apologize for the policy and suggestions that its more recent statements (including the Gospel Topics essay) “don’t go far enough”.

The thing I admire most about people/groups is when they try to right wrongs. It’s always interesting when someone/a group never apologizes, and it’s never a good sign. 

[Just_A_Guy]

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

That’s understandable. If the roles were reversed I’m almost certain white people would be whining and demanding the same. 

Erm . . . I’m white, and I trace my Israelitish ancestry through Ephraim, and I’ve *never* demanded the Lord apologize for His earlier policy of giving the priesthood to Levites and withholding it from my people.

I’ve never expected Orthodox Jews to apologize for it, either. 

Edited November 24, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Erm . . . I’m white, and of Ephraim, and I’ve *never* demanded the Lord apologize for His earlier policy of giving the priesthood only to Levites.

Lol. Of course. 

[LDSGator]

If you grew up with an Irish family, you might have had uncles who loved to whine about the signs “No Irish need apply” that were on New York stores in the 20’s.
 

Oddly, some of those same uncles can’t grasp why African-Americans “complain” about how they were treated in the past. It’s astonishing to me, but now I make jokes about it because I see how idiotic it is. 

Edited November 24, 2024 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

3 hours ago, Ruben said:

This introduces another principle, namely:
"Are prophets infallible?" 
Perhaps we can believe that Brigham Young was a prophet and yet still accept that he made a mistake. Prophets are not infallible, after all they are human and as the ancients said "errare humanum est". 

Okay, this is off topic and not an insult to anyone. @Ruben, don’t take this as a pejorative please. 
 

Does anyone remember the classic video game Zork? This font reminds me of the game. 

[SilentOne]

6 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Does anyone remember the classic video game Zork?

Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!

[Carborendum]

17 hours ago, Ruben said:

This introduces another principle, namely:
"Are prophets infallible?" 
Perhaps we can believe that Brigham Young was a prophet and yet still accept that he made a mistake. Prophets are not infallible, after all they are human and as the ancients said "errare humanum est". 

I'm afraid that you've made an assumption that has yet to be proven.  ==> i.e.  The priesthood ban was a human error, not inspired by God.

To be clear: My position is that we don't know.

You can go on believing that it was a human error. After all, you could be right.  But you may want to open your mind to the possibility that it was, indeed, inspired by God.  And that fact is (whether you admit it or not) you don't know either.

Edited November 25, 2024 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

7 hours ago, SilentOne said:

Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!

Awesome!!! 

[estradling75]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm afraid that you've made an assumption that has yet to be proven.  ==> i.e.  The priesthood ban was a human error, not inspired by God.

To be clear: My position is that we don't know.

You can go on believing that it was a human error. After all, you could be right.  But you may want to open your mind to the possibility that it was, indeed, inspired by God.  And that fact is (whether you admit it or not) you don't know either.

A lot of people prefer things to make sense.  Human error, Human racisism... totally understandable.  God doing things that seem and appear hurtful, harmful by our limited understanding.  That is harder to understand.  That is when we need to have the faith of Abraham. God promised Abraham a son and many blessing that would come through his son.  Then once his son was hear and it looked like the blessing were well underway... God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son.  Do you think Abraham really understood what God was doing?  I don't.  But Abraham did what he what he was commanded right to the end when God revealed more unto him.   Abraham was bless for his obedience even if it did not make sense at the time

[Carborendum]

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

A lot of people prefer things to make sense.  Human error, Human racisism... totally understandable.  God doing things that seem and appear hurtful, harmful by our limited understanding.  That is harder to understand.  That is when we need to have the faith of Abraham. God promised Abraham a son and many blessing that would come through his son.  Then once his son was hear and it looked like the blessing were well underway... God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son.  Do you think Abraham really understood what God was doing?  I don't.  But Abraham did what he what he was commanded right to the end when God revealed more unto him.   Abraham was bless for his obedience even if it did not make sense at the time

Yes, and we ought to have the humility of Abraham to recognize that we don't know better than God. 

That attitude of believing "well, OBVIOUSLY, this was wrong.  So, OBVIOUSLY, God would never have done ..." is the attitude that created Protestantism and the rejection of many an ancient text which were mostly valid scriptural texts.

And humans use limited understanding to believe that Joseph Smith was just a con-man and Brigham Young was a horny, racist, slaver because... OBVIOUSLY...

We need to have the humility to admit that man does not understand all that the Lord understands.  And some things are too complex for Him to 'splain it to us.  We cannot believe in an all-knowing, all-wise God without letting go of our hubris which dictates what He would or would not do -- or require us to be able to understand why He does what He does.

[JohnsonJones]

Part of the reasons for the ban were based upon scripture, scripture which Still is canon today.

Abraham 1:21-27

Quote

Quote

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

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

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

 

The accepted clause at the time of Brigham Young (Whether correct or not) were that those who were of a darker skin tone that were from African (the Continent) descent were the descendants of Ham, and thus also of Cain. 

This is an unpopular thing to refer to among many today. 

Brigham Young did not ban blacks from having the priesthood, but said that they would not be partakers of it until all others had their chance to accept the gospel and to receive it.  By 1978 the gospel had been promulgated throughout the world.  Any who truly would have sought it (at least the familial lines, someone in each family line, though not perhaps individually) would have had the opportunity most likely at that point, sometime in that past century. 

In fulfillment of prophecy, the 'ban' was finally lifted and Blacks could have the priesthood.  It is also retroactive, meaning all blacks from any point in history may also receive the priesthood.

This is a very uncomfortable topic and item for many to discuss or bring up.  It is something that politically can be polarizing.  The Essays themselves which address the issue are not canon and not official doctrine.  They are made to explain things and at times phrase them in ways that will not offend.

The other side of the coin deals not only with those who may not receive certain blessings, but those who are handicapped, those who are in bad circumstances, and even those who are rich.  The following is NOT official doctrine today either (as far as I can tell).  We all lived in the pre-existence. While there we made choices.  Those choices are reflected in what position we find ourselves in this life.  Some of these choices were made by us to help us grow in knowledge and understanding.  Others were made because we wanted or did not want certain challenges in this life.  If one did not have the priesthood in this life, it was most likely due to choices that they made in the life prior to this one...in the pre-existence.  This does not necessarily mean that they were good or evil, but it means that choices they made previously, have an effect on what happened after.

The same applies today as well.  What we choose in this life, the choices we make, will affect what we do in the next life after this one.  Some will choose to follow the Lord and gain whatever is the result of that.  Some will choose to live in luxury, pleasure, and riches and will gain whatever is the result of that.  I think we had more control over what we would face and deal with, the trials and challenges we would have, when we decided what we needed or wanted in the Pre-existence, as well as if our Lord had a mission for us to accomplish in this life, but our life today still will have an impact on the eternal life we have in the future. 

[Carborendum]

I just heard about the growth of the church in Africa.  Just a year or two ago, there was a stake conference (a single stake in Mozambique) where they just sustained over 150 men being ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. In one conference.  Think about how long it took to get every man to be named, stand, and be sustained.

Some interesting comments:

• The people in Africa don't give a hoot about racism or restrictions.  They learn about the priesthood ban.  They spread their knowledge.  They shrug and move on.  It's meaningless to them.
• When they go to the temple, nothing shocks them.  Primitive societies know that ceremonies have symbolism embedded in them.  And third world nations still carry their ancient symbols with them.  Temple symbols are simply another set of symbols.

This made me consider that maybe we will get more insight from the African converts about the temple ceremony and about why the ban was there in the first place.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Carborendum

[mikbone]

Watch Nigeria 

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Watch Nigeria 

Ok can do:

[Maverick]

The priesthood ban didn’t begin in 1852, with Brigham Young. It goes back to ancient times. Abraham 1 is very clear on this. This scripture was received by revelation to Joseph Smith in the 1830s, who also taught that blacks are descendants of Cain and Canaan and under a divine curse. As church patriarch, Hyrum Smith also gave the lineage of Cain and Canaan to black members in patriarchal blessings. Joseph Smith also didn’t ordain any black men nor did he administer temple ordinances to any black members. 

The closest is that he likely approved of the ordination of Elijah Abel, who was only 1/8 black, but there’s also testimonies of witnesses who said that he later recognized that this was an error and told Elijah Abel that he was no longer permitted to exercise the priesthood and perform priesthood ordinances. 

The vague disavowal of past theories in the Race and the Priesthood essay doesn’t mean the doctrine was wrong or that the past explanations were wrong. They simply no longer apply in the church today because the ban has been lifted. 

I for one am a firm believer that Joseph Smith, the scriptures, and the brethren prior to 1978 were not wrong and that the ban was divinely instituted by God. 

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Maverick said:

The closest is that he likely approved of the ordination of Elijah Abel, who was only 1/8 black, but there’s also testimonies of witnesses who said that he later recognized that this was an error and told Elijah Abel that he was no longer permitted to exercise the priesthood and perform priesthood ordinances. 

This is not my understanding of the matter, either for Elijah Abel or for his sons. Do you have references supporting this?