Lifting of the priesthood ban for black males

[_harmony]

sgsdgr
ve

Loran are you alright? Are you able to respond?

Perhaps he's speaking in tongues, and we can't understand him because we don't have the necessary spiritual focus.

[_Roger Morrison]

How much more evidence is required by thinking people to conclude, Mormonism is simply another Christian sect of X# with their unique answers to questions posed by other thoughtful folks for 1,000s of years.

Any venture, to be successful MUST cater to the wants and needs of the public. LDSism does that with a sales force diproportionate to it's size. All reps, not even on commission, paying for the opportunity to donate their (& parents) resources for doing so. Like WOW! Who couldn't 'succeed' with 50,000+ disciplined sales folks working for 'free'!?

In addition to the fore mentioned reps, LDSism offers the prospects converted by the Reps, generally speaking, a new comfort zone. Another MUST to meet the objective of any enterprise.

Another MUST is, to not be a leader breaking costly new ground, nor at the trailing end where there exists no prospects of success. This necessitates careful study of consumer thought, and the ability to quietly conform without brandishing BIG new-&-better stickers. Their (LDS) appeal is not to progressives, liberals, or the venturesome. They appeal to conservative, past-oriented, fundamentalists threatened by unconventualism, until 'that' becomes conventional and adoptive... LDS examples of submissions to culture-pressure are a matter of record. They ain't stupid! Are we :-)? Warm regards, Roger

[_harmony]

How much more evidence is required by thinking people to conclude, Mormonism is simply another Christian sect of X# with their unique answers to questions posed by other thoughtful folks for 1,000s of years.

Any venture, to be successful MUST cater to the wants and needs of the public. LDSism does that with a sales force diproportionate to it's size. All reps, not even on commission, paying for the opportunity to donate their (& parents) resources for doing so. Like WOW! Who couldn't 'succeed' with 50,000+ disciplined sales folks working for 'free'!?

In addition to the fore mentioned reps, LDSism offers the prospects converted by the Reps, generally speaking, a new comfort zone. Another MUST to meet the objective of any enterprise.

Another MUST is, to not be a leader breaking costly new ground, nor at the trailing end where there exists no prospects of success. This necessitates careful study of consumer thought, and the ability to quietly conform without brandishing BIG new-&-better stickers. Their (LDS) appeal is not to progressives, liberals, or the venturesome. They appeal to conservative, past-oriented, fundamentalists threatened by unconventualism, until 'that' becomes conventional and adoptive... LDS examples of submissions to culture-pressure are a matter of record. They ain't stupid! Are we :-)? Warm regards, Roger

No, we aren't stupid. We just expect them to live up to their claims: God's own true church, ya know. If we didn't have that claim shoved down our throats every 6 months, we'd... I'd at least be more inclined to cut them some slack. After all, they're just a bunch of old men trying to keep their world like it was in the prime of their lives. Progressive thinking isn't mandated by a church led by men; progressive thinking is only mandated if the church is truly led by God.

[_Jason Bourne]

I read some information about this on another site. I was aware of the issues in Brazil, which caused the Church to review the ban on the priesthood for black males. What I did'New Testament know was that the Church was about to lose it's tax empt status because of discrimination. It's interesting that the so-called ban on polygamous marriage came at the time Utah had sought but was being denied statehood. Here, when likely given an estimate of the tax that would be paid, the revelation came. But I read that Kimball described it as inspiration, but the members call it a revelation. It seems that the church sometimes moves down certain roads, not because they want to, but because protestant political power is rallied. I also read that some universities were not going to attend events where BYU participated. I wonder what happened in the LDS chapels in South Africa when Kimball recieved his inspiration/revelation. I read that the ban was almost rescinded in 1969 but certain apostles got the issue shelved.

A few points, issues:

1: You should read David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism for a fascinating account of his dealings with the priesthood ban. in my opinion he would have changed it had he not had so much resistance from some powerful senior apostles. The Church was expanding ini Nigeria on it own in the early 60's. There was talk of opening a mission there and they almost did but then got nixed. Shortly after that all hell broke loose in Nigeria when civil war broke out. There were also issues in South Africa.

2: I have heard accusations that the Church was about to lose its tax exempt status over this but never anything other then accusations. Can anyone document this?

3: Certian Universities were boycotting BYU over this issue in the 60's and 70's.

4: The processes involved in both the dropping of polygamy and lifting the priesthood ban certainly do leave an impression of a lot of posturing, positioning and politicizing among the top leaders. If it was revelation it was a lot different then most members are led to believe revelation comes.

[_Jason Bourne]

How convenient that race was the basis for determining that lineage!

Nowhere does any GA I know of claim that race was the basis for determining the lineage, and I did not make such a claim. If you had read my post a little more thoroughly you would have seen that I do not subscribe to the concept of race as a valid intellectual category. Human beings are all of one type or species, and are differentiated by a plethora of variations involving minor anatomical and physiological modifications. There are no human "races" distinct from one another in the manner that the doctrine of racism assumes.

The entire concept of the Priesthood ban was based on the idea of lineage. But then, lineage looms large throughout LDS doctrine regarding exactly everybody, so this is no surprise at all.

What Brigham Young and others taught was that black people were of a specific lineage which was denied the higher Priesthood. He didn't say that race determined the lineage but that this particular race was a part of that lineage.

But, again, as this was never official church doctrine, the point is moot. Yes, it was taught in authoritative tones-in the same authoritative tones some GAs have denounced evolutionary theory, but the Church does not function on the teachings of one, or even a body of GAs. That isn't how official, settled doctrine is understood to be received and accepted by the general membership.

Cogs.

Whose lineage cause the bad and why was it restricted to African Blacks then? why did South Africans have to prove trough genealogy records that they had not black blood?

[_Jason Bourne]

As to this, I'll only say that much of what is mentioned here are things I've been saying in this forum for the past year. I think Runtu may misunderstand me and others here. The Priesthood ban itslef is not official church doctrine; it is a positon the church has held to from its beginnings but that has never been put before the membership as a matter of core doctrine upon which our salvation is grounded. I was never bound to believe and except it as a LDS in the sense I am other fundamental principles.

Not doctrine? The statement says it is a direct command from the Lord. Isn't saying that a direct command from God is not doctrine like saying the 10 commandments are not doctrine? As for never being bound by it you certainly were. Were you to ordain a black person you would have been ex'd.

It is only the continued preoccupation of our post sixties society with race and race as a focal point of modernist liberal public morality that moves the focus of off the concept of lineage as a principle within the Church that has governed eveybody, to one degree or another (including all the tribes of the House of Israel), to a black only fixation.

maybe it is a realization that certain cultural norms that allowed for institutionalized racism and bigotry was really a bad thing and society has moved beyond it.

[_Jason Bourne]

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

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 premortal 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 mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain 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.

We have the first presidency stating that the ban was a "direct commandment from the Lord."

The statement clearly states that the doctrine is that "negros" are not entitled to the priesthood.

It states that the "curse of darkness," is "in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God."

I really don't see how anyone can get around the idea that the ban was not doctrine, or that it was not a direct commandment from God.

Unless the leaders were not inspired, were lying, pretending or otherwise making something up.

~dancer~

Nothing that we are uncomfortable with is even doctrine in the apologist eyes. It is either policy or opinion.

[_Some Schmo]

And just a little reminder...

The BAN IS STILL IN PLACE! :-)

The church now allows black men from Africa to hold the priesthood but it still does not let women of any skin color or ancestry hold "the power."

Personally, I do not think there is some exclusive Godly power held by a handful of men who believe in Joseph Smith... nevertheless, the LDS church still has the ban alive and well!

I wonder if there will come a time when society abhors sexism as it does racism.....

~dancer~

Very true, although there is solace to take in the fact that they are only bestowing their pretend power based on pretend worthiness.

And actually, TD, I think society already does abhor sexism as much as it does racism, which is a sad state of affairs concerning our current view of racism. It hasn't progressed nearly as much as it still needs to.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Harmony, you wrote:

No, we aren't stupid. We just expect them to live up to their claims: God's own true church, ya know. If we didn't have that claim shoved down our throats every 6 months, we'd... I'd at least be more inclined to cut them some slack. After all, they're just a bunch of old men trying to keep their world like it was in the prime of their lives. Progressive thinking isn't mandated by a church led by men; progressive thinking is only mandated if the church is truly led by God. (Bold added by RM)

Not meaning to be out-of-harmony ;-) but, IF you had been 'burned' on several occasions by someone you 'trusted', and depended upon, who time-after-time betrayed your 'trust', what other words would You choose to describing yourself? Especially with the insight you have of their states of being!? AND the conclusion you come to seems some what discrediting of their claim-to-fame?? Huh/eh? Warm regards, Roger

[_harmony]

Hi Harmony, you wrote:

No, we aren't stupid. We just expect them to live up to their claims: God's own true church, ya know. If we didn't have that claim shoved down our throats every 6 months, we'd... I'd at least be more inclined to cut them some slack. After all, they're just a bunch of old men trying to keep their world like it was in the prime of their lives. Progressive thinking isn't mandated by a church led by men; progressive thinking is only mandated if the church is truly led by God. (Bold added by RM)

, what other words would You choose to describing yourself?

Harmonious. ;-)