Token black explains the priesthood ban

Post by **_gramps** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:34 am

More power to him, I say. Whatever rocks his boat.

But, why do they compare the "revelation" of 1978 together with the manifesto of 1890? Half the apostles, if not more, including the next couple of Presidents of the church (speaking of the Manifesto, here), sure didn't consider it a revelation. Or if so, it was some strange kind of revelation that apostles could disregard with impunity, at least until 1904 or so.

If that is not spin, I don't know what is.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:00 am

I think it's funny how so many Mormons latch onto stories like LeGrand Richards saying he saw Wilford Woodruff there in the temple, when none of the other prophets, seers, and revelators saw him, and then point out that there's this obvious connection to Woodruff here, because after all, he ended polygamy. Yeah, and polygamy and the blacks not having the priesthood are somehow the same kinda thing, right?

As far as this film goes, I don't doubt the sincerity of this black member. I'm sure he believes the church is true, and has rationalized away any problems he might have had with the priesthood ban. I wonder how he felt about being regarded, before the ban ended, by a lot of, if not most, Mormons as having been less valiant in the pre-existence, or knowing that his race only continued through Ham the son of Noah so that Satan could have representation on the earth. I'm sure that was a big self-esteem booster, eh?

He says the ban couldn't have been lifted 50 years previous, because the people weren't ready for it. Bullcrap. Is the LDS Prophet a Prophet or not? Will not the LDS people do as the Prophet says? If the prophet had said, in 1928, that black people were just as eligible to receive the priesthood as white people, that the Church would have been OK? Would the people not have followed the Prophet? So, Joseph Smith had people going along with him in marrying their already married wives, and wouldn't have gone along with the very few black folks in the church being ordained elders and high priests? Seriously, how many black people were we even talking about here? There can't have been all that many of them. The Mormons pride themselves on being a peculiar people, but apparently not if that peculiarity had been the ability treat black people on equal terms with white people from the institutional point of view. No siree Bob, that's just too peculiar. Give me a freaking break.

Post by **_gramps** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:04 am

And thank heavens God is behind all the new technology that is coming out.

I know I was ready for Plasma Lighting Systems. He/She must have heard my silent prayers and knew I was ready for more light.

Praise the Lord!

Post by **_christopher** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:29 am

Ray A wrote: Porter does not seem to realise how offensive his term "token black" is.

Following the prophet, I prefer "darkies".

Chris <><

'Darkies' are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church."
- Joseph Fielding Smith,

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:29 am

Sethbag wrote:He says the ban couldn't have been lifted 50 years previous, because the people weren't ready for it. Bullcrap. Is the LDS Prophet a Prophet or not? Will not the LDS people do as the Prophet says? If the prophet had said, in 1928, that black people were just as eligible to receive the priesthood as white people, that the Church would have been OK? Would the people not have followed the Prophet? So, Joseph Smith had people going along with him in marrying their already married wives, and wouldn't have gone along with the very few black folks in the church being ordained elders and high priests? Seriously, how many black people were we even talking about here? There can't have been all that many of them. The Mormons pride themselves on being a peculiar people, but apparently not if that peculiarity had been the ability treat black people on equal terms with white people from the institutional point of view. No siree Bob, that's just too peculiar. Give me a freaking break.

Excellent point.

And everyone was ready for Mormon adultery 150 years ago? Not really.

I don't know if I would even be posting on this board if Smith secretly revealed to a select few that he was a ordain'in black folk without their masters knowing.

Post by **_barrelomonkeys** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:04 pm

I watched... the only thing that jumped out to me was that Blacks couldn't go into the Temple before 1978? I thought priesthood was just some sort of title... I didn't realize it kept people out of the Temples.

Token black is not nice. I'm sure he feels fine within his religion and faith. I'm glad the Church did away with this ban.

Post by **_Some Schmo** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:43 pm

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*

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:55 pm

Some Schmo wrote: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?

Post by **_why me** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:58 pm

The interesting tidbit about when the GA's were in the temple and Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation. It is nicely told by Leonard Arrington in one of his books. It seems that it was quite a revelation to witness, according to the GA's present in the temple. The whole revelation was very inspiring for those of us who were around at that time.

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.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:02 pm

The... "We just weren't ready" exuse is such total nonsense! Blaming God once again for the cruely of men.

What, so God waits until the whole rest of the country embraces a higher awareness, and when everyone else has let go of the degradation and cruely, God will finally change 'his" mind?

Maybe it is me, but I would have the idea that God would be at the forefront of bringing goodness to the world!

I wonder how long it will be until God thinks enough men are ready, for women to be considered equal human beings? (sigh)

~dancer~