- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I originally posted this on another thread, but decided to move it to here because it didn’t really belong buried there. Due to that other thread, I went back and reread the essay on Race and the Priesthood and I was really pleased. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng I’m glad that the discussion gave me a reason to go back and read it. It is a very well-worded and clear statement and I’m grateful that the Church has produced it. Some parts I love, some parts I appreciate for the honesty. Although the entire article is worthy of being read, I’ve included a handful of important snippets:
Quote:In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of His children and makes salvation available to all. God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally. As the Book of Mormon puts it, “all are alike unto God.”
Quote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored amidst a highly contentious racial culture in which whites were afforded great privilege. In 1790, the U.S. Congress limited citizenship to “free white person
.” Over the next half century, issues of race divided the country—while slave labor was legal in the more agrarian South, it was eventually banned in the more urbanized North. Even so, racial discrimination was widespread in the North as well as the South, and many states implemented laws banning interracial marriage. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that blacks possessed “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”Quote:In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination… The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah… Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.
Quote:Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.
Quote:The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons” and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”
It has now been about six months since the essay was released. I suspect that in some areas, people are well aware of it, and in others nobody has any idea that it exists. I’m thinking of ways that I can start to use this with equal air time as the The Family: A Proclamation to the World. In my devious moments, I think about taking all the above quotes, printing it on a 11×14 sheet of sepia-toned paper, slapping it in a frame hanging it on a wall at Church to see how long it takes before someone removes it
I’m not really going to do that, because it’s not my nature to do so. But, I’m interested in helping get the word out there. Any thoughts on how to do that in a respectful manner? I’d love to hear ways that you’ve already done it or how you’ve seen others do it in Church.😆 That would be funny – heck if the proclamation is “revelation” why can’t this be? Seriously, I see little difference except that former is actually signed by the Q15 – but LDS.orgisthe official stance of the church and contains just as much scripture as the Ensignor GC. Anyway, I did see the post in the other thread, and I think you’re right – it deserves its own. My only success at spreading the word has been word of mouth. Were I a blogger or Facebook or Twitter person I’d probably post there. I’m not posting on the other thread anymore, but I also reread the essay as a result of that thread and agree that I don’t see how one can objectively read it and not conclude that the long held racist policy relating to the priesthood ban was in error and not the will of God.
Quote:Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory.
I suppose it could very well be true but there it is yet again. The south… solely responsible for instilling racism on unsuspecting populaces since before the birth of the Unites States.
DarkJedi wrote:I’m not posting on the other thread anymore, but I also reread the essay as a result of that thread and agree that I don’t see how one can objectively read it and not conclude that the long held racist policy relating to the priesthood ban was in error and not the will of God.
I agree that this subject deserves its own thread, so I’ll post my view here. I seem to be in the minority on this subject so far here, so I would like to see how you would answer my perspective. See if you think it objective or not. Here it is:As I read the new statement, I see nothing there that disagrees with my explanation of the ban in the early and mid 70s on my mission and after. I never believed or taught that it had anything to do with racism or any inferiority in that race. To conclude that would be to conclude that women are inferior as well. I believed and taught every principle brought out in the statement and saw no contradiction with the current policy at that time.
I guess my point is that although those at the time of Brigham may have held racist views, we need to carefully consider the views on race of the prophets and apostles in the 20th century. Do you really believe that Presidents Grant, Smith, McKay, etc. believed that blacks were inferior and did not deserve the priesthood? Pres. McKay went through a similar process to that of Kimball assuming that doctrinally it was possible that the time had come. Do you really believe that his own racial prejudice was so strong that the Lord couldn’t get through to get him the right answer? If that were so, he wouldn’t have even been inquiring.
I have a hard time believing that Christ, who cares for and loves each individual so deeply, would allow such a policy to persist, unless it was part of his plan and was in some way for the good of those affected and for the good of the church as a whole. There are examples of policies that had a far less impact that he did give direct revelation on to change, some of which did not even involve the seeking of the recipient. A good example is where Jesus appeared to Lorenzo Snow in the temple to have him change the traditional way of choosing the new prophet. If Jesus cared as much about equality or fairness as we think we do, why would he not have done the same thing with this policy?
If you believe that this policy is without precedent, you are forgetting that God withheld the gospel and the priesthood for a time from the gentiles. That change was not even sought after by Peter and the others, but came anyway. For centuries only a select few of one tribe of the Israelites were allowed to hold the priesthood and participate in temple ordinances. So how can anyone say that this policy is without precedent? Do you think that it was only because Moses felt that all the other tribes were inferior to the Levites?
The very reasons that say this policy could not have been inspired by God would argue just as convincingly that God would not have allowed it in the first place or at least to continue very long. The most likely conclusion of that reasoning to me is that this church is not Christ’s church. That is why there would need to be a clear statement that the policy was not inspired, for me to believe otherwise. I can see very good reasons for the brethren to not come out and clearly state that it was indeed inspired if it was. Such a statement would be forcing meat into the mouths of infants and would open up a Pandora’s Box of unnecessary questions that could not be answered.
So please help me see what I am missing here. I realize that my conclusions are only based on the information I have at this time, so give me some information or perspective that I may be missing if you can.
On Own Now wrote:It has now been about six months since the essay was released. I suspect that in some areas, people are well aware of it, and in others nobody has any idea that it exists. I’m thinking of ways that I can start to use this with equal air time as the The Family: A Proclamation to the World. In my devious moments, I think about taking all the above quotes, printing it on a 11×14 sheet of sepia-toned paper, slapping it in a frame hanging it on a wall at Church to see how long it takes before someone removes it
I’d say quoting it in lessons and talks, and using it very liberally in online boards and comments sections of Meridian Magazine-type publications. I haven’t used this essay in either, but in a lesson where I quoted the several versions of the First Vision,
oneperson asked me afterwards where I got the 1832 account. When I used the 1978 First Presidency letter “God’s Love for All Mankind” – again, just one person asked me for a reference. Our points of view are different DaddyB. You apparently believe Jesus directs the church. I don’t and I think no prophet since Joseph Smith has received revelation and some of his are suspect. For me, it’s less about spreading the word about this document and more about still trying to figure out “why” there was so much confusion about race and the priesthood. The document continues to raise questions for me. And the more I think about it, the closer I get (I think) to the answer. Consider that the ban was put in place. After that, it was a matter of following it or changing it. Finally it happened in 1978.
During my life I first believed, based on what I heard somewhere, that it was a matter of the supposed “curse.” Then I came to believe that it was approved by God due to the contentious period and what America was ready for…almost like the way the BOM and restoration happened when the world was ready. Finally, years ago, I just accepted that we don’t know the reason but God does–and there must be a reason but we don’t know why.
Now I look back and none of these possibilities make much sense. I can only guess that the leadership of the Church accepted one or all of these reasons at some point…it wasn’t a matter of how to reverse the ban, just acceptance. I’d like to think that if the ban was uninspired or based on racists views or political aspirations, which it now appears, the later leadership would have fixed it much sooner. But they just accepted it.
Finally today it’s absurd to most everyone and thus we get the document explanation. And there’s a degree of honesty in the text that acknowledges this. For that I give the current leadership credit.
Hard to fault the past leadership after BY when I myself accepted so many different explanations for so long. The difference between me/us and them is that as prophets of God there should have been some inspiration to end it sooner. For me either they were uninspired or just accepted X.
Can’t say which it was, but that’s where I’m at. And glad the document was produced last year.
I think you make a good point, Alex. I have long said that much of what we consider to be doctrine is only doctrine because someone said it and it just get parroted over and over again. We hear it every almost Sunday in church and we hear it in GC. I think this is exactly what happened with the priesthood ban with BY and others at some point, and it was just accepted because (a.) it was said by the prophet and (b.) it was repeated over and over again for over a century. I read this interesting quote the other day, I don’t know who to attribute it to. “The difference between the Catholic church and the LDS church is that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible, but the Catholics don’t believe it. The LDS Church teaches that the prophet is fallible, but the Mormons don’t believe it.”
DaddyB wrote:If you believe that this policy is without precedent, you are forgetting that God withheld the gospel and the priesthood for a time from the gentiles. That change was not even sought after by Peter and the others, but came anyway. For centuries only a select few of one tribe of the Israelites were allowed to hold the priesthood and participate in temple ordinances. So how can anyone say that this policy is without precedent? Do you think that it was only because Moses felt that all the other tribes were inferior to the Levites?
I may be missing something here so forgive me if I’m way off base. Human nature sets this precedent. We create groups of us and them, we form exclusive cliques, we set up rules to prevent “outsiders” from obtaining positions of power from within “our” ranks. Obama brought the natural born citizen clause for becoming the president of the US to the limelight. That clause sounds like a manifestation of our human nature that wants to protect us from the outside boogeyman.
The jews and the gentiles? Xenophobia. The Levites? Nepotism. The priesthood ban? Racism. Women? …Sexism? Shoehorn cronyism in there somewhere. So who sets this precedent? I can see multiple angles to the issue. It could be that it’s within human nature to discriminate and people tend to define their god in a way that makes sense to them, group xyz doesn’t have the priesthood so come up with reasons why it represents the will of god (as the church did for so long with the priesthood ban). Perhaps it’s within human nature to discriminate and god is using the generations to wean people off of their tendency to discriminate, chip away at it over hundreds of years. Or something else entirely, I don’t know.
You touched on one of the issues that I imagine the OW group might have. The change may not be sought after by the Q15 but the OW crowd feels like that change is coming anyway. They probably feel like they are hastening (
It’s interesting that over time (depending on which organized religion you’ve belong to) the priesthood seems to more and more inclusive and less and less exclusive. A few guys, that’s it. Ok, now all men in this family. We need to open it up to male converts. Well we better extend it to all white males now. Better make that every worthy male. That could be representative of layers of discrimination coming off one by one or it could be the priesthood opening up to more people as the gospel is able to reach more people, thus creating the need. It could be both, they could be feeding off each other. Perhaps the spread of the gospel both creates the need and peels away imperfections that hold that spread back at the same time.
DarkJedi wrote:😆 That would be funny – heck if the proclamation is “revelation” why can’t this be? Seriously, I see little difference except that former is actually signed by the Q15 – but LDS.orgisthe official stance of the church and contains just as much scripture as the Ensignor GC.
Actually… if you were to create a mock-up of this you could include the following:
“Approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles”
Source:
Quote:Most who study our history well understand the context of these matters as far as time and place. But some members of the Church — many, really — are surprised by some of the things they learn in our history. And we want them to be able to go to a place where they can read accurate information and be able to seek to understand those historical chapters in the context of time and place. And understand that those
answers have been approved by the presiding brethren of the Church. I think that will give many of our members confidence that they can rely on these answers. We have actually retained outside the Church History Department — we have retained scholars, for the most part outside the Church History Department — known LDS scholars to do some very extensive research. And this has been groundbreaking in a way. These issues have not always had academic attention. They haven’t really been researched carefully. So we are very pleased that these scholars would agree to do this research. They then submitted a draft of their paper to a committee of historians here in the Church History Department as well as
General Authorities who have reviewed their work and adjusted some edits. Those edits are made with the permission of the original writer. And that’s then submitted to the presiding Quorums of the Church, the Twelve and the First Presidency for approval. And then it’s published in Gospel Topics under LDS.org. Much of what’s written now, these arguments and these issues, have been around for decades — 150 years. And it’s the same material repackaged. And we understandably have not spent a lot of time in the past worrying about these issues because our mission is to promote faith and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. But as the information age is now upon us? We feel with all of this information out there, we owe it — particularly to the rising generation — to provide good, reliable information about these matters.
Elder Steven E. Snow
Church Historian and Recorder and the Executive Director of the Church History Department.
https://www.lds.org/topics?lang=eng#media=11373505780672488714-eng DaddyB wrote:I agree that this subject deserves its own thread, so I’ll post my view here. I seem to be in the minority on this subject so far here, so I would like to see how you would answer my perspective. See if you think it objective or not.
It’s always good to get a range of views on the forum. It stops it being an echo chamber.
Quote:
As I read the new statement, I see nothing there that disagrees with my explanation of the ban in the early and mid 70s on my mission and after. I never believed or taught that it had anything to do with racism or any inferiority in that race. To conclude that would be to conclude that women are inferior as well. I believed and taught every principle brought out in the statement and saw no contradiction with the current policy at that time.I guess my point is that although those at the time of Brigham may have held racist views, we need to carefully consider the views on race of the prophets and apostles in the 20th century. Do you really believe that Presidents Grant, Smith, McKay, etc. believed that blacks were inferior and did not deserve the priesthood? Pres. McKay went through a similar process to that of Kimball assuming that doctrinally it was possible that the time had come. Do you really believe that his own racial prejudice was so strong that the Lord couldn’t get through to get him the right answer? If that were so, he wouldn’t have even been inquiring.
It’s important to bear in mind that the President does not have executive power. Decisions are made by consensus and unanimity. Even if modern leaders were not racist, there were certainly racist attitudes in the quorum.
You mention President Grant. He said (in response to a question about racial inter-marriage):
Quote:“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous”Then there are other apostles in the 1950s and 1960s who might have held back the unanimity needed to accept this change.
Take two for example. In 1954, Elder Mark E. Petersen said:
Quote:“I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after… it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it… we must not feel so sorry for the Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have.
“… we can account in no other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. There are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, regarding all according to their deeds.”
“Now let’s talk segregation again for a few minutes. When the Lord chose the nation to which the spirits were to come… He engaged in an act of segregation… When he cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation. When he forbade intermarriages… He established segregation… He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew and absolute line. You may even say He dropped an iron curtain there. The Negro was cursed as to the Priesthood, and therefore, was cursed as to the blessings of the Priesthood. Certainly God made a segreation there.
“Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all of the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity, but think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the Gospel…
“In spite of all (the negro) did in the preexistence… he can… enter the Celestial Kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a Celestial resurrection.”
http://www.sainesburyproject.com/mormonstuff/Race%20Problems.pdf Do you suppose someone like that was ready/able to get any other answer than “no?” Elder Stapley wrote the following in 1964:
http://mormonmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/delbert_stapley.pdf Is there any wonder that it took so long? Both Elders Peterson and Stapley were in the 12 all through the 1970s. It may, or may not, be significant that they were both living but absent when the revelation was received. They were asked to endorse it later, after the other apostles had reached consensus.
Quote:
I have a hard time believing that Christ, who cares for and loves each individual so deeply, would allow such a policy to persist, unless it was part of his plan and was in some way for the good of those affected and for the good of the church as a whole. There are examples of policies that had a far less impact that he did give direct revelation on to change, some of which did not even involve the seeking of the recipient. A good example is where Jesus appeared to Lorenzo Snow in the temple to have him change the traditional way of choosing the new prophet. If Jesus cared as much about equality or fairness as we think we do, why would he not have done the same thing with this policy?
There are plenty of horrible things taught as God’s will and doctrine that lead to awful attitudes and horrific acts. Why didn’t he intervene with those? Why doesn’t he teach some of the bigots who wave homophobic banners on street corners? Maybe it’s because they won’t listen. If they are not actively seeking an answer then maybe no answer is possible.
Why didn’t he come down and intervene with the racist views of Apostles? The church has disavowed all but the ban itself. I imagine it won’t be long before that is too.
Why did it take so long to change the policy? I think it was because so many leaders took the same attitude as the 1940s First Presidency (which included George Albert Smith):
Quote:“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.”
If it’s a an attitude that they have “never questioned” then it’s also likely that no revelation is possible.
Quote:
If you believe that this policy is without precedent, you are forgetting that God withheld the gospel and the priesthood for a time from the gentiles. That change was not even sought after by Peter and the others, but came anyway. For centuries only a select few of one tribe of the Israelites were allowed to hold the priesthood and participate in temple ordinances. So how can anyone say that this policy is without precedent? Do you think that it was only because Moses felt that all the other tribes were inferior to the Levites?The very reasons that say this policy could not have been inspired by God would argue just as convincingly that God would not have allowed it in the first place or at least to continue very long. The most likely conclusion of that reasoning to me is that this church is not Christ’s church. That is why there would need to be a clear statement that the policy was not inspired, for me to believe otherwise. I can see very good reasons for the brethren to not come out and clearly state that it was indeed inspired if it was. Such a statement would be forcing meat into the mouths of infants and would open up a Pandora’s Box of unnecessary questions that could not be answered.
So please help me see what I am missing here. I realize that my conclusions are only based on the information I have at this time, so give me some information or perspective that I may be missing if you can.
Where was the revelation to introduce it? There was none. There were simply erroneous conclusions based on fear and a bad reading of scriptural texts. There was never any revelation given to start the ban on blacks having the priesthood. I’ve asked many apologists on many different forums to provide one and they’ve never been able to offer anything.
So perhaps it’s true that God limited the priesthood to the Levites for some reason. There is certainly a scriptural basis for it. Having said that, I’d point out that Mormon theology would say that’s not true. Alma was lived before the law of Moses was fulfilled (i.e. he lived ‘BC’) and he had the priesthood. Was he a Levite?
There is no revelation nor scriptural basis for denying blacks the priesthood. Any reading of the scriptures that leads to justifying the ban is based on racist assumptions (curse of cain etc). Beyond a false reading of the scriptures you need to look to a modern prophet. Joseph certainly didn’t oppose black having the priesthood. Brigham and his group introduced it but never even claimed to have received a revelation. It was an administrative decision that later became folklore and was perpetuated by one simple thing: assumptions.
If a leader says he will “never question it” then it will never change.
Wow, thanks for the quote from Elder Snow, mackay11. Maybe the mockup wouldn’t be so bad. mackay11 wrote:If a leader says he will “never question it” then it will never change.
I would likewise submit that if we as members do the same, the result will be the same. If we don’t question the leadership they will not change.
DarkJedi wrote:Our points of view are different DaddyB. You apparently believe Jesus directs the church. I don’t and I think no prophet since Joseph Smith has received revelation and some of his are suspect.
Now that is a good consistent view on this topic. Thanks for your honesty and clarity. That does bring up some other interesting questions, but that would be for another thread.mackay11, Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my post. You give some very thoughtful ideas that are not without merit. I do, however, see what seem to me to be some inconsistencies. I hope you won’t mind me pointing them out.
mackay11 wrote:
It’s important to bear in mind that the President does not have executive power. Decisions are made by consensus and unanimity. Even if modern leaders were not racist, there were certainly racist attitudes in the quorum.Do you suppose someone like that was ready/able to get any other answer than “no?” Elder Stapley wrote the following in 1964:
http://mormonmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/delbert_stapley.pdf Is there any wonder that it took so long? Both Elders Peterson and Stapley were in the 12 all through the 1970s. It may, or may not, be significant that they were both living but absent when the revelation was received. They were asked to endorse it later, after the other apostles had reached consensus.
To me these arguments are just too weak. There were people in the twelve that had made very strong statements in favor of the ban for similar reasons, such as Elder McConkie, who were involved with the change. Also, there has never been as much strong opinion on this subject as there was with the introduction of plural marriage, but God made it happen. Such a principle was much more abhorrent to all involved, including Joseph. This issue doesn’t even come close. The ending of that policy also faced much more resistance from those in the leadership than this one we are discussing. To me, your reasoning here is inconsistent with the reality of history. Also, these quotes from apostles and prophets of the 20th century are based on strong intellectual opinions, not deep emotional feelings. I believe that any of these brethren would have been easily swayed if the present president would have taught them a different paradigm based on new information he had received through revelation. It’s not like these guys felt any hate, fear or animosity toward any particular race. Remember that these men welcomed with open arms, black people from the islands and Aborigines of Australia, not to mention the different Asian ethnicities.mackay11 wrote:
There are plenty of horrible things taught as God’s will and doctrine that lead to awful attitudes and horrific acts. Why didn’t he intervene with those? Why doesn’t he teach some of the bigots who wave homophobic banners on street corners? Maybe it’s because they won’t listen. If they are not actively seeking an answer then maybe no answer is possible.
These examples are not relevant to this discussion. This is not about opinions of people on the street. It is about policy in Christ’s church created and administered by his prophets and apostles.mackay11 wrote:
Why didn’t he come down and intervene with the racist views of Apostles? The church has disavowed all but the ban itself. I imagine it won’t be long before that is too.
If your position is correct, there is no reason that wouldn’t have already happened. To me this is a very weak position.mackay11 wrote:
Quote:“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.”
If it’s a an attitude that they have “never questioned” then it’s also likely that no revelation is possible.
I think you are missing the point here. The assumption is that leaders who are inspired to the degree of apostles and prophets, question things because of inspiration from God. The reasoning here infers that if God did not inspire any of these great men to question this, God must have a reason for it, which is my argument as well. These were not men of hatred or bigotry. They did not have emotional fears and loathing for people of different races. If so, why did they so easily embrace and love all the other races? This was purely academic to them and perhaps even inspired except for some of the reasons they came up with.mackay11 wrote:
Where was the revelation to introduce it? There was none. There were simply erroneous conclusions based on fear and a bad reading of scriptural texts. There was never any revelation given to start the ban on blacks having the priesthood. I’ve asked many apologists on many different forums to provide one and they’ve never been able to offer anything.
There are many inspired policies of this church throughout history where no revelation was published. To me this is another weak argument, especially when compared with the reality that there has been no statement that the policy was not of God.mackay11 wrote:
So perhaps it’s true that God limited the priesthood to the Levites for some reason. There is certainly a scriptural basis for it. Having said that, I’d point out that Mormon theology would say that’s not true. Alma was lived before the law of Moses was fulfilled (i.e. he lived ‘BC’) and he had the priesthood. Was he a Levite?
The fact that God made an exception in the case of the Nephites makes the policy even more suspect in Palestine. Yes there is scriptural basis for it and that scriptural basis becomes scriptural basis for the similar policy in our day.mackay11 wrote:
There is no revelation nor scriptural basis for denying blacks the priesthood. Any reading of the scriptures that leads to justifying the ban is based on racist assumptions (curse of cain etc). Beyond a false reading of the scriptures you need to look to a modern prophet. Joseph certainly didn’t oppose black having the priesthood. Brigham and his group introduced it but never even claimed to have received a revelation. It was an administrative decision that later became folklore and was perpetuated by one simple thing: assumptions.
Throughout the most recent statement by the church on this issue it makes clear the reality that leaders of the church, including Brigham Young felt this was a temporary policy and not eternal. Leaders since Brigham Young all knew that it was temporary, so their strong statements were not so much to say it wouldn’t change as it was to persuade that it should be in place at that present time. Most of us at that time expected to see the end of the policy by the beginning of the Millennium and many of us expected to see it in our lifetimes. The fact that a revelation was needed to reverse it is a strong inference that a revelation started it. This following quote from the most recent statement makes it very clear that there was no hesitancy based on racism during the time of David O McKay, or any hesitancy to question it. After reading this quote, it is hard to conclude anything but the fact that the Lord was definitely okay with the ban.“By the late 1940s and 1950s, racial integration was becoming more common in American life. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.14
Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.