- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I get asked about once a month to teach the HPG. I’m not a regular teacher, and already teach Gospel Principles, but always say yes, and have fun doing the lesson. In light of several discussions here on and other boards on the lack of knowledge about the essays that have been published to the LDS web site, I announced yesterday that when ask to teach, I would be taking the first few min to review one of the essays (left unsaid to the leadership, was it they did not like my idea, they could stop asking me to teach!)
So I started the class by asking if anybody knew that the church was publishing essays on church history and doctrine, and started about 9 months ago. Out of 10 people, two raised their hands. I then when over all the names of the essays, and then asked of the two, who had read them. Only one hand went up (and he was black!). So I said we would start with the “Race and the Priesthood” one today. I did not read the whole thing, I just hit the highlights, like BY being influenced by his culture and the prevailing thought of the day. I then quoted the paragraph that said the church disavows all the justifications put forth by leaders and members over the years.
This created some consternation among the HP. One very TBM brother in the back asked how our leaders could have come up with such justifications. I told him to read the whole essay, and come to his own conclusions. He said he didn’t need to read the essay, and that if the leaders were not acting according to God’s will, they would “Burn in hell for what they did!” The back guy in the room almost busted his gut laughing so hard, with the biggest grin on his face. (an aside, this black guy is a former bishopric member and current High Councilman, and is married to a white woman)
I end the Race section of my lesson, by saying as High Priests, it is our duty to know the doctrine of the church, and correct people’s misconceptions when we hear them in other classes, and we can’t correct people if we don’t know the doctrines.
I then when on with the regularly scheduled lesson.
Our HPGL talked to me afterword, said the important thing to remember was that there was never an official FP statement on any of these theories. I agreed with him, but then got to thinking about it later, and was not too sure that there wasn’t some official statement from the FP about Backs and the priesthood. So, anybody know of any statements signed by the FP on why blacks could not hold the priesthood?
I suppose it all depends on what one considers “official.” FP members did indeed discuss some of these things from time to time in GC – if GC is official, then I suppose they made an official statement. Since many members believe whatever is said in GC is scripture, then I suppose it’s scripture, too. (Someday when I’m in a particularly vile mood I would like to make someone squirm trying to explain that.) I found the below on Mormon Think Quote:
Official Statement of First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:“The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes…..
“Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain’s transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world.”
But they did not have any other reference for it, and I’ll need a more “church friendly” web site to share with the HPGL. Does anybody else have a reference to the above, or a copy of the original?
FAIRMormon: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements Sheldon, you’ve got guts. I admire you for taking this on in the face of TBM’s who would want to rationalize it all away. Great job in raising awareness though. I think we need more lessons like these. I agree. Great job. I was talking with my Bishop about the Sunday Schools lessons this month on Elder Oaks’ talk about the Priesthood, and he said it would be great if all the adults in the ward could have had those lessons, since “there is some real meat in that talk that most members don’t understand”. This is the same man who told me when I was called to be their teacher that they had been taught how to read a generic flight manual but they now needed to learn how to fly their own individual planes.
To answer the question, I don’t know of any official statements. However – to me – forbidding an entire race of humans from entering the temple and receiving the priesthood seems pretty “official.” This isn’t a perfect example, but the Chinese constitution officially says many things, but it does far fewer. The de facto situation is what is “official” to me when I travel to China. The ban felt official to a large number of people.
Well I hope this helps. “The things of God cannot be understood by the spirit of men. It is impossible to always measure and weigh all spiritual things by man’s yardstick of scales. Admittedly, our direct and positive information is limited. I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough. The prophets for 133 years of the church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation. I believe in the living prophets as much or almost more than the dead ones. They are here to clarify and reaffirm. I have served with and under three of them. The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error, which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure. These smart members who would force the issue, and there are many of them, cheapen the issue and certainly bring into contempt the sacred principle of revelation and divine authority.”
–Spencer w. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, June 1963–p. 448–
Blacks and Priesthood– “I am not sure that there will ever be a change, although there could be. We are under the dictates of our Heavenly Father, and this is not my policy or the Church’s policy. It is the policy of the Lord who has established it, and I know of no change, although we are subject to revelations of the Lord in case he should ever wish to make a change.”
Spencer w. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball–p. 449
Official Declaration— #2 – D&C
Does this work?
DarkJedi wrote:FAIRMormon:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements
The 1949 statement by the first presidency is a pretty descriptive piece. It states that it was doctrine not policy, and it gives reasons for that doctrine. It is disingenuous to say “we don’t know why those doctrines were in place” when the living prophets at the time explained why quite clearly.Tim wrote:DarkJedi wrote:FAIRMormon:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements
The 1949 statement by the first presidency is a pretty descriptive piece. It states that it was doctrine not policy, and it gives reasons for that doctrine. It is disingenuous to say “we don’t know why those doctrines were in place” when the living prophets at the time explained why quite clearly.The problem arises, however, when the official stance of the church is that all of those reasons given prior where, in fact, wrong.
Tim, it was consistent and correct to say that we didn’t know why it was put in place, if, as DJ says, we also said the former justifications were wrong (which is what the official position was after OD2). However, we now have the most recent explanation on lds.org (prepared by historians along with the Joseph Smith Papers project) that lays out why it was put in place and not rescinded for so long, so we simply can share the new explanation. We don’t have to get stuck in or defend previous understandings and explanations.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.