Token black explains the priesthood ban

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Regardless, of what the exer or postmos say, that revelation and how it was witnessed should close the books on church so called 'racism' before the lifting of the ban.

I'm afraid it won't, at least not until the Church expressly disavows past reasons given for the ban (i.e., the Curse of Cain, preexistent behavior, etc.), which would be consistent with the current position of "we just don't know why the Lord did it."

[_Some Schmo]

That anyone could possibly believe the spin presented here is a true testament to how much people want and need to believe BS in order to keep their personal comfort.

Unbelievable.

Yeah... god thought he'd wait till the people put away their prejudices after the civil rights movement because they weren't "ready." Holy crap, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Like God has ever given a crap whether people were ready for anything. I wonder when god will think humans are ready to accept homosexuals, too.

*rolls eyes*

God often holds off stuff. Remember consecration? The whole Zion thing?

I don't remember anything about Jesus being a racist, though. It seems he was supposed to be a lover of all mankind from the start. Does it actually seem reasonable to you that a loving, just, christ-based god would institutionalize racism in his church until mankind was ready to embrace racial equality?

If you really think that, then holy crap, you surely are willing to believe (and rationalize) just about anything.

[_The Nehor]

That anyone could possibly believe the spin presented here is a true testament to how much people want and need to believe BS in order to keep their personal comfort.

Unbelievable.

Yeah... god thought he'd wait till the people put away their prejudices after the civil rights movement because they weren't "ready." Holy crap, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Like God has ever given a crap whether people were ready for anything. I wonder when god will think humans are ready to accept homosexuals, too.

*rolls eyes*

God often holds off stuff. Remember consecration? The whole Zion thing?

I don't remember anything about Jesus being a racist, though. It seems he was supposed to be a lover of all mankind from the start. Does it actually seem reasonable to you that a loving, just, christ-based god would institutionalize racism in his church until mankind was ready to embrace racial equality?

If you really think that, then holy crap, you surely are willing to believe (and rationalize) just about anything.

Christ went only to the Jews and actually tried to rebuff a Gentile seeking help as that was not a part of his Mission. I personally don't accept the 'not ready' excuse. From everything I've read there seemed to be several groups 'ready' and wanting the Priesthood in Africa years before 1978 rolled around. I lump understanding this with understanding why Christ gently rebuffed the Gentile woman and why he waited over a thousand years to bring back his Church and why he still hasn't given women the Priesthood.

[_truth dancer]

Hi why me...

Regardless, of what the exer or postmos say, that revelation and how it was witnessed should close the books on church so called 'racism' before the lifting of the ban.

Of course the issue should not be put to rest.... not until the church clarifies that God had nothing to do with it.

So long as it is believed among church members that God was at the helm of racism the problem should not be put to rest! Not at all!

It may be behind the church in matter of practice but it is alive and well in terms of teaching.... ask anyone why the ban existed and you will realize that racism has not gone away!

~dancer~

Remembering that the ban is still alive and well regarding females.

Why people think that the ban is over because skin color is no longer an issue, knowing that the ban is still in place due to body parts baffles me.

[_Brackite]

Hi! The most usually LDS Apologetic response and most usually Internet Mormon response to the Priesthood ban that basically states, 'God didn't extend and give the Priesthood to Black People because of the prejudices of that time,' doesn't really make any logical sense. If that was the case, then why didn't the white People who were found to have a bit of African descent in them denied and not given the Priesthood also???

[_Some Schmo]

Why people think that the ban is over because skin color is no longer an issue, knowing that the ban is still in place due to body parts baffles me.

God has to get over one issue at a time. He tried to rectify his racists problems with this thing in the 70's. He's still working on his misogyny and homophobia as we speak, but it's taking a back seat to his habitual warmongering.

[_Brackite]

Here is what the LDS Apologist Jeff Lindsay, wrote on one of his Web Site Pages:

Interestingly, the exclusion policy applied to ancestry, not to skin color. There were completely white-skinned Americans who had been serving in the priesthood who later found out that they were of partial African descent. These white Americans then had to step down from their priesthood offices. Likewise, natives of the Fiji Islands, who have a beautiful, deep black skin, are apparently not of African descent and were able to hold the priesthood prior to 1978. And Asians, native Americans, Indians, and many other peoples of color have always had access to the priesthood.

( http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQRace.shtml )

[_Some Schmo]

Here is what the LDS Apologist Jeff Lindsay, wrote on one of his Web Site Pages:

Interestingly, the exclusion policy applied to ancestry, not to skin color. There were completely white-skinned Americans who had been serving in the priesthood who later found out that they were of partial African descent. These white Americans then had to step down from their priesthood offices. Likewise, natives of the Fiji Islands, who have a beautiful, deep black skin, are apparently not of African descent and were able to hold the priesthood prior to 1978. And Asians, native Americans, Indians, and many other peoples of color have always had access to the priesthood.

( http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQRace.shtml )

Well, that's much better. "Sorry, you can't have the priesthood because of your grandparents. It's them, not you. You're fine."

Oh yes, this sort of prejudice is far more palatable.

And why would god allow people who didn't qualify for the priesthood to get ordained in the first place? Where was the spirit of discernment in those cases? And what about all the people who participated in ordinances conducted by those "illegitimate" priesthood holders? Were those blessings and (whatever) all nullified?

I can hear the Mormons now... "No wonder that blessing for the sick never worked!! It was that mulatto dude that blessed her."

[_truth dancer]

Hey Brackite!

Ahhhh as if there is anyone alive who doesn't have ancestry from Africa! LOL!

Or maybe some still think Adam and Eve were placed here from another planet?

The whole thing is such nonsense!

:-)

~dancer~

[_Gazelam]

This doctrine of the priesthood not being given to the Negro race until recent times has a precedent in Christs not teaching the Gentiles until Paul received a revelation to do so.

Example: Mark 7:24-30
24 ¶ And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.
25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.
29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.


Christ would have nothing to do with the woman, because the children of the kingdom were to be dealt with first. Why? because they had a fertile ground to grow the gospel in. There was a precedent of faith.

This was changed in Acts chapter 10 when a dream is presented to Peter that the time had come to deal with the Gentiles.