We haven't really discussed the ban....

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by grapevine

The lord is very discriminatory. As far as blacks not holding the priesthood Peter was reluctant to give the gospel to the gentiles. Why did the lord wait so long to give it to them.

I don't buy this one. The gospel in general had not been taken to the gentiles yet. Once it was, they got the priesthood.

Originally Posted by grapevine

Why can't the chinese or arabs have full gospel priveleges yet nations don't allow proselyting? Why don't people get married or couples that have kids that want them?

Are you serious here? They can't have the full privileges because their governments won't allow it. The Lord isn't witholding the priesthood or the gospel from these groups, their leaders are witholding. You can bet your farm that the minute these governments allow proselyting then any resident of such nations will be allowed the full benefits of the gospel.

Honestly, I have no idea what in the hell you said/mean in your second sentence here.

Originally Posted by grapevine

Wilford Woodruff said the lord won't let anyone who leads the church lead it astray and M Russell Ballard said that the twelve can't. Individuals may falter but as a whole the church leaders won't lead us astray.

And the Lord didn't allow them to lead the church astray. Again, this really was an issue for less than 20 years. I think one could argue that once the Lord was approached on the issue he answered. Both Lee and Fielding Smith were on record saying blacks would never hold the priesthood. I think one could easily argue that these 2 didn't feel it needed to be taken before the Lord.

Originally Posted by grapevine

We don't know and should trust the leaders are called of God. In SWK's new bio it said in South Africa there was no reports of discrimination by black church members.

And what do we trust? They've said they don't know why the ban existed and they've said there was a revelation ending it. That's easy to trust. We know that in the times from BY up to Lee that there was mention of "fence sitting" that was widely accepted throughout the church. Such explanations are now totally disavowed by the church. It's evidence that leadership thought they knew why the ban existed but were wrong.

As far as your second sentence here I don't even know what to say. It was South Africa. Ever heard of Apartheid? Do you think the church membership was anti apartheid? Don't kid yourself. McKay's journals address the fact that leadership in South Africa opposed blacks holding the priesthood and that is what I originally referred to.

Originally Posted by grapevine

Before the priesthood was allowed leaders said they deserved equal rights before the law business and such in fact abhored racism and discrimination. As far as priesthood it's the lords he can give it to whoever he pleases. It is power to act in God's name and serve. And no one suffered eternally that wasn't allowed the priesthood. Will get all the blessings they merit.

You clearly have not studied all the history available to you. To say that leadership abhored discrimination is laughable. McKay had to be convinced to let Ralph Bunche stay in the Hotel Utah. He finally allowed it under the condition that he not be allowed to dine with the Whites but would take meals in his room. Ezra T. Benson was vocal against the civil rights movement calling it a communist plot. He planned to run for VP of the USA with George Wallace as Pres. candidate. These are just 2 easy examples that illustrate that our leadership did not think much differently than the rest of the country on the issue of race in those days.

I have no doubt that our leadership advocated that all races were equal before God in the end. But to say that they abhored discrimination is simply not true. They fell along the same lines as most Americans in those times.

Originally Posted by grapevine

In ancient Isreal why were only the Levites allowed the priesthood. Nephites could have aaronic priesthood. Why was it pretty much patriarchal before the flood.

This is probably the best argument for your line of thinking. I'd argue that it's still different though because it's just one race that was excluded versus tribes within a race being excluded. Once all of the tribes and those adopted in were allowed the priesthood, it's hard to explain one race being excluded.


I understand where you and others are coming from. I used to feel the same way. But it now makes much more sense to me that the Lord corrected an error on an issue that really was only an issue for a very short period of time relatively speaking. Denying blacks the priesthood from the time of BY to McKay was a moot point. Nobody was asking for the priesthood. If you believe that the Lord decided to impose a 15 year ban on blacks then so be it. It seems much more likely to me that over a period of 15 years leadership debated/discussed and took to the Lord an issue that had growing implications. The Lord answered. I don't hold it against leadership that they thought as their peers thought in those times.