- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the restoration of the church that Jesus actually created on this earth during his ministry, a church that lost its way after the apostasy. If that is true, then the prohibition on blacks being able to gain the priesthood would mean that Jesus himself prohibited blacks from full communion in HIS church. There is very little wiggle room around that basic fact. A restored church is not merely a reformed church; it is the church as it originally existed. So, despite the rescinding of the anti-black doctrine in 1978, the church still has to answer for how it can claim to be a “restored” church if it in the first instance denied blacks the priesthood, because that would suggest that Jesus did too, and there is no evidence that Jesus made distinctions between the races when he called them all to come unto him.
I guess if this was Mormon Matters I might launch into a civil/uncivil dialogue about the merits of your post. Since it’s not, I won’t. It is what it is and what the LDS church did, is doing, or might do, all I’ll do is take note and decide if I want to be part of it. Just to be clear curt, I don’t think you are going to find anyone here that will disagree with the problem as you presented it. So it’s kind of like preaching to the choir. *shrug* It’s fine to discuss this topic. For the sake of discussion, i’ll bite
FWIW, I believe the church was wrong in two ways:
1. First off by making popular 19th century racist ideas a part of the theology.
2. For hanging on to those incorrect cultural ideas for waaaaaaaaaaay too long.
I didn’t add this to the list above, but I also think they did a poor job of managing the change, but that I see as poor implementation instead of incorrect thinking.
curt wrote:the church still has to answer for how it can claim to be a “restored” church if it in the first instance …
It’s religion. They don’t have to make sense, and they don’t have to follow a logical sequence. The typical easy out — “It’s a mystery of God, and we will understand it better later … later … don’t let it bother you. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
curt wrote:here is no evidence that Jesus made distinctions between the races when he called them all to come unto him.
Well … that isn’t exactly accurate. This is a topic that has been debated since the time of Paul arguing with Peter and James about it.
Please let me be clear. I do not support any type of racial theory about salvation or exaltation. But here are some bits of “evidence” that people see as problematic. Jesus, it seems, did not preach to anyone who was not Jewish. At least these are the stories someone wrote about what they thought he preached. A few examples:
Matthew 15:
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said,
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.Matthew 10:5-6
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Those are a couple of examples. I personally think, and this is just my opinion, that they did not preach to non-Jews before Paul. I think that changed, and Paul (or more accurately, the followers of Paul’s direction) became the dominant force in early Christianity. Therefore, they collected and or made up the stories we find now in the New Testament. That was probably a good thing for the continued survival and long-term success of Christianity. It would have died off as a short Jewish curiosity had the original focus on the House of Israel-only been maintained.
This stuff was a major problem for me, fortunately it seems like the church has moved on. Since I’ve come back, I’ve had one African missionary teach me, and one half-black guy from the States teach me as well. And there are also several black members in our ward too. I don’t know why things happen or whether the church made a mistake with this. My inclination is to think that there was a deeper meaning behind the whole thing. After all, it’s not the first time God has prohibited a certain race or group of people from fully partaking of the blessings of the priesthood in this life. Look at the 12 tribes of Israel for example where the priesthood was confined to the tribe of Levi. I don’t think this was racism on God’s part but instead a way of Him being able to fulfill his own purposes. Of course today, in the enlightened age that we live in
🙄 , we see any differences between races as racist or racism. I think the priesthood ban was probably from God. Do I think that the attitude towards blacks from most people in the church even leaders was or God? Assuming that they had an attitude of anything else other than all out love and acceptance towards them, that I would say absolutely not of God. But we learn and we grow.My opinion, besides one of really just not knowing, is that the priesthood ban was from God and that it helped Heavenly Father accomplish some purpose that He had. It had nothing to do with his preference towards one race over another because he does not work that way. We are all a group of spirits who came down to this earth to have a mortal experience to further our eternal journey. Each one of us had different things we have to learn and I believe we chose to come down among the set of experiences that would best help us further our progression. I also think we consulted with and trusted in God that He knew what we most needed to be challenged with.
If God came down into our society and lived among us, would He fit into all of our social norms? Probably not… after all Jesus didn’t and he is God. They killed him! The issue of racism within the church in the past is a hard pill because the people of the history, just like everyone else, were a product of their generations. Will they be held accountable for their wrong views? I hope not because I don’t want to be held accountable for my wrong views.
curt wrote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the restoration of the church that Jesus actually created on this earth during his ministry, a church that lost its way after the apostasy.
If that is true, then the prohibition on blacks being able to gain the priesthood would mean that Jesus himself prohibited blacks from full communion in HIS church. There is very little wiggle room around that basic fact. A restored church is not merely a reformed church; it is the church as it originally existed. So, despite the rescinding of the anti-black doctrine in 1978, the church still has to answer for how it can claim to be a “restored” church if it in the first instance denied blacks the priesthood, because that would suggest that Jesus did too, and there is no evidence that Jesus made distinctions between the races when he called them all to come unto him.
First of all, I don’t think it’s very realistic to take popular opinions about what is considered politically correct nowadays and then assume that people in a completely different environment and time should have seen things the same way we do or that God would expect them to think like us whether they had any inspiration or revelation from him or not. Maybe God just doesn’t want to control every single person’s thoughts and actions along with the weather and natural disasters like a huge puppet-master staging a giant play scripted to be happy for everyone all the time.
What is more problematic to me than past Church leaders possibly being racist (at a time that this wasn’t exactly unheard of) is simply the fact that they continued to claim that this policy came directly from God in a dogmatic and unequivocal way as if it was set-in-stone and would never change for so long only to completely reverse this policy later on. The way I see it, if they’ve been wrong before and can’t seem to keep their story straight then why should I listen to them when they say I need to hand over 10% of my income as tithing if I want to have an eternal family?
If the Church wasn’t still trying to hold on to all these lofty claims about exclusive authority and the supposed reliability of revelation it would be much easier for me to just let go of these problems and shrug them off as “little flicks of history” that are entirely “in the past.” The real issue for me here is not so much past mistakes that we can’t really do anything about now as much as the fact that their claims about the way things are supposed to work don’t really fit with what I see happening repeatedly in practice.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:curt wrote:What is more problematic to me than past Church leaders possibly being racist (at a time that this wasn’t exactly unheard of) is simply the fact that they continued to claim that this policy came directly from God in a dogmatic and unequivocal way as if it was set-in-stone and would never change for so long only to completely reverse this policy later on. The way I see it, if they’ve been wrong before and can’t seem to keep their story straight then why should I listen to them when they say I need to hand over 10% of my income as tithing if I want to have an eternal family?
I stopped trying to get my parcels of truth from church leaders a long time ago. The ideal is that we could all be instructed by the spirit on what is truth.
In the past I tried to figure out when a church leader was speaking by the spirit and when they were not. When they were speaking doctrine and when it was simply their own opinion. Then I heard about Bruce R McKonkie saying teaching that blacks would never recieve the priesthood in this life and that people should stop asking about it. Then later, after the revelation, he was humbled and had to admit that he had been wrong and that he was part of the reception of the revelation. To see that something that happens to me all the time, could happen to them opened my mind on this topic and I learned that it doesn’t matter to me when they are speaking by the spirit or when they are speaking doctrine or not. What matters is whether or not I am listening by the spirit or not because then I will truly learn doctrine despite what they are saying!
There are multiple discussions here where I have shared my thoughts about the ban. I’m not going to do so again right now. Rather, I’m going to ask a very direct question: Curt, what’s your point – your motivation in writing this post the way you did? We have no problem addressing this topic here, as evidenced by the multiple posts about it, but I am curious about how you worded this one and why you posted it. Please explain.
If it is to gain understanding, I will participate – even as the personal understanding I will share will be links to voluminous things I’ve written elsewhere. In a nutshell, I don’t believe it was God’s will – but I also believe it was inevitable, and it doesn’t affect my perspective on prophets and former members. If it’s to say, “The Church was and is wrong, and this proves it – so the Church is false” – I won’t be participating.
I’m being totally honest, curt. Please understand why I am asking. I really want to know.
GBSmith wrote:I guess if this was Mormon Matters I might launch into a civil/uncivil dialogue about the merits of your post. Since it’s not, I won’t. It is what it is and what the LDS church did, is doing, or might do, all I’ll do is take note and decide if I want to be part of it.
Old-Timer wrote:…Curt, what’s your point – your motivation in writing this post the way you did? If it’s to say, “The Church was and is wrong, and this proves it – so the Church is false” – I won’t be participating. I’m being totally honest, curt. Please understand why I am asking. I really want to know.
Yeah. I’m not biting this time.
Curt, I agree with Brian. Your post is “preaching to the choir.” I think most of us here believe the priesthood ban was wrong. If you are interested in learning about early Black priesthood leaders during Joseph Smith’s lifetime (such as a black Branch President in Boston named Joseph Ball), check out the links below. It is clear to me that the ban started with Brigham Young, rather than Joseph Smith. There are at least 7 early black priesthood holders dating to as early as 1832. http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/03/09/early-black-mormons/ http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/09/14/was-priesthood-ban-inspired/ I wrote this post because it just struck me as a problem that I had never seen addressed before. Yes, I am preaching to the choir for those who think the ban was wrong, but that is not the point of my post. My point is that if the church is truly a restored church then that would have to mean that the original Christian church denied the priesthood to blacks, would it not? And if it can be shown that that was not the case, then there really is no way Joseph Smith was operating from revelation. So, yes, I think it casts serious doubts on the church’s veracity that is worthy of mention, something that I have never seen mentioned before. In fact, it seems to me a lot of things that the Church believes/practices could put up to the same judgment. I am not looking for a debate. I could care less about that. I just wanted to post this as an idea for people to ponder. If you don’t want to go there, don’t. No worries.
curt wrote:I wrote this post because it just struck me as a problem that I had never seen addressed before.
???
Quote:I am not looking for a debate. I could care less about that. I just wanted to post this as an idea for people to ponder. If you don’t want to go there, don’t. No worries.
It’s been pondered.
and addressed multiple times here I’m doing something we rarely do and closing this thread. Honestly, curt, I’m scratching my head on this one and trying really, really hard to be charitable and believe your last comment. I mean that; I really am trying to be charitable, but I’m closing comments. There simply is nowhere this can go in any productive way as it’s framed currently.
Feel free to find one of the other threads where the Priesthood ban has been discussed here – but don’t trot out the “everything now must have existed then” tripe. It’s just wrong on way too many levels to address properly.
If we decide as admins to open it again, we will do so after discussing it.
The premise isn’t new, even though I totally understand it might be a new thought for you Curt. These can be profound personal realizations. I asked to keep this thread going. But we have to keep it in line with the theme of our community. We don’t really do traditional apologetics here normally, so that was probably the reason for the initial yawn in the responses. It is also why the thread got locked. It didn’t look like it would become a productive discussion.
So I suggest we sort of shift the topic to your way of viewing this problem, and seeking alternate perspectives. The problem is what it is (or more so, was that way. It has been 30+ years since that was renounced). We are pretty familiar with the history.
curt wrote:My point is that if the church is truly a restored church then that would have to mean that the original Christian church denied the priesthood to blacks, would it not? And if it can be shown that that was not the case, then there really is no way Joseph Smith was operating from revelation.
Perhaps the LDS Church today isn’t a carbon copy of the christian church in 50 AD. Does that mean nothing was “restored?” For its time, Mormonism under Joseph Smith was a radically different direction in Protestant Christianity. That’s hard to argue against.
This seems to me like a very binary, all-or-nothing way of thinking. If one thing was wrong, then nothing else could be right. That doesn’t seem to be how the world really works, at least to me. “Restored” can mean a lot of different things to people. I know what is assumed by a lot of members of the church though.
Another thing — Joseph Smith really wasn’t the source of that idea. It wasn’t even an idea original to Mormonism, but we unfortunately brought it in to our theology. It dates back at least as early as 300AD (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain ).Joseph Smith was extremely progressive for his time period IMO. He ordained blacks to the priesthood, and even made Elijah Abel a member of the Quorum of the Seventy (reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel ). The racial priesthood theology developed more under Brigham Young and later “prophets.” But that really doesn’t help us escape the overall problem you present.But my main point is this: just because one thing is wrong doesn’t mean that all “revelations” from Joseph Smith are wrong. And a single mistake in the past doesn’t rule out all future contact with the divine. We can find value and spiritual enlightenment in anything we want, anything the produces value for us. Don’t mistake my position though. I personally don’t have an orthodox LDS view of the nature of prophecy and revelation received from leaders. I see it in a much more fuzzy and non-fundamental perspective.
curt wrote:So, yes, I think it casts serious doubts on the church’s veracity that is worthy of mention, something that I have never seen mentioned before. In fact, it seems to me a lot of things that the Church believes/practices could put up to the same judgment.
Actually, everything should be questioned IMO. We should seek a direct connection with the divine, and personal revelation trumps all in the end. Nothing is beyond examination. But … that also doesn’t mean that everything a prior “prophet” said was false because we can find a flaw.
We should own our beliefs. I don’t agree with every tradition and dogma within Mormonism. Heck, we already have multiple threads and a well-written article trying to figure out even what is absolute dogma within Mormonism. It as hard as nailing jello to a wall.
curt wrote:I am not looking for a debate. I could care less about that. I just wanted to post this as an idea for people to ponder. If you don’t want to go there, don’t. No worries.
We don’t mind the topic. Really. But our goal isn’t to defend past speculations at all costs. It just isn’t important to the purpose of our community. We don’t depend on the prior leaders being right on everything they ever speculated. It’s OK to be wrong, at least in my world.
Curt, I think you need to rethink your premise. Joseph Smith himself probably ordained some blacks to the priesthood. (Check out the links I posted before.) Here is some info that I copied from my website. *
Black Pete– According to historian Mark Staker, Black Pete was an ex slave living in Kirtland 1830 or 31. Journal accounts say that he was baptizing people in Kirtland during this time period. *
Joseph T Ball– was baptized in the summer of 1832 by either Brigham Young or his brother Joseph Young who served a mission to Boston. Ball later went on mission with Wilford Woodruff, in New England, New Jersey. In 1837, Wilford Woodruff records in his journal that Ball was an Elder. Ball is the son of man of Jamaica who came in 1790 (JT Ball Sr) founded society to help colored widows in need. His mom was white. Joseph born in Cambridge. All of his sisters became feminists and abolitionists. The LDS branch Ball was part of contained mostly women converts. He was named Branch President (similar to a Bishop in a larger LDS congregation) in 1844, and is the first black man to preside over Mormon congregation. He performed baptisms for his ancestors. He received patriarchal blessing from William Smith in Nauvoo. He died of tuberculosis in 1856. Thanks to Connell who corrected me below, I have some new information.
Ball was the Boston Branch president from October 1844 to March 1845 – the largest LDS congregation outside of the Nauvoo area.He was ordained a High Priest by William Smith (the first African American HP) and was sent to Nauvoo by Parley P. Pratt in the spring of 1845 to work on the temple and then receive his endowments. Ball did go and work on the temple, but then he and William Smith apostatized around August 1845 and Ball never was endowed because the temple didn’t open until December 1845. *
Elijah Abel– became the third known black convert to the LDS church, being baptized in 1832. He received the priesthood in 1836, and served 3 missions to Ohio, NY, and Canada. He helped build the Kirtland, Nauvoo, and Salt Lake Temples, received his washing and anointing in the Kirtland Temple, but was denied the endowment by Brigham Young in 1853. He left Nauvoo before the endowment was received to serve a mission. Margaret Young speculates that Elijah would have received the endowment if he was in Nauvoo while Smith was alive. His obituary in the Deseret News shows that he held the office of Seventy in the Melchizedek Priesthood. *
Isaac Van Meter– Wilford Woodruff’s journal says Van Meter “used to be a Mormon elder.” He was probably baptized by Ball or Woodruff in Maine around 1837. Apparently, Van Meter left the LDS church. *
Walker Lewis– joined the LDS church in the summer of 1843. He was probably baptized by Parley P Pratt in the fall of 1843. He was ordained and Elder by William Smith, Joseph’s younger brother. Lewis has a very interesting history. He was the son of slaves, and sued for his own freedom. His case is cited as the case which liberated slaves in 1783 in Massachusetts. Winning the court case resulted is his family being able to purchase property. He voted, was educated, and became upper class of black Massachusetts society. In 1820 he became a barber. In 1826 he helped found Massachusetts General Colored Association which was the first civil rights abolitionist group in the world. In 1823, he because a freemason, and master mason. In 1829 he signed the form declaring independence from the mother lodge in London, making his lodge Black Lodge #1. He was well acquainted with 6 of the 12 apostles who had served missions in Massachusetts, including Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt , Parley Pratt, and William Smith. Woodruff wrote in his journal that “He was an example for his more whiter brethren to follow.” Lowell Branch where he lived was saved because of his service. It is known that he traveled to Salt Lake City in Oct 1851.
*
Enoch Lovejoy Lewiswas his son and ordained an elder as well. Enoch Lewis’ 1846 marriage to a white LDS woman, Mary Matilda Webster in Boston, and their having a mixed-race child in 1847, was a contributing factor to the Priesthood ban. See Connell’s comments below. *
William McCarywas ordained an Elder by Apostle Orson Hyde in October 1846. He was known as the “black prophet.” William was later excommunicated in 1847 for seducing a number of Mormon, white women into unauthorized polygamy. Warner “William” McCary was NOT half-Native American, although he claimed to be Choctaw. His mother was an African American slave and his father was her white master, a carpenter born in Pennsylvania. McCary made up his Native American heritage and traveled around the country putting on shows as an “Indian”, claiming to be the lost son of Moshullah Tubbee, a great Choctaw chief. It was a scam to make money. The catalyst for the priesthood and temple ban was a culmination of McCary’s marriage in 1846 to the daughter of Nauvoo stake president, Daniel Stanton, and then his sexual “sealings” to several other LDS women at Winter Quarters and other LDS camps in 1847.
Here is a list of other notable exceptions to the Priesthood ban.
*
Enoch Abel, Elijah’s son received the priesthood, and is ordained an elder on Nov 27, 1900. *
Elijah Abel, Enoch Abel’s son, received the priesthood, and is ordained a priest in 1934. In 1935, he is ordained an Elder.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.