The purpose of Blacks and the Priesthood ban - Page 13 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SteelBlue · 12-13-2007, 10:43 PM

I continue to be shocked at how long some will hold to the notion that the ban was likely God's will vs a misguided policy. I continue to read posts stating that God kept the priesthood from all but one tribe or that the gospel as a whole was kept within house of Israel until an appointed time as examples of times that God has "discriminated". To me there is a major and obvious difference.

Yes, God has in the past offered things to one group excluding "the many" but when, except for the Priesthood ban, has he offered something to ALL groups but one? I can't think of any example. Now, the fact that the one excluded group happens to be a race of people and that race of people just happens to be the race of people that most of the world felt was less than equal to the world's other races is more than a bit suspicious isn't it? Throw on top of that the fact that there were reasons given for this ban all along and every single one of those reasons has been disavowed and by golly I think we probably have our answer don't we? Is it possible that the ban was instituted of God? Yes. Is it likely? No.

exUte · 12-13-2007, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I continue to be shocked at how long some will hold to the notion that the ban was likely God's will vs a misguided policy. I continue to read posts stating that God kept the priesthood from all but one tribe or that the gospel as a whole was kept within house of Israel until an appointed time as examples of times that God has "discriminated". To me there is a major and obvious difference.

Yes, God has in the past offered things to one group excluding "the many" but when, except for the Priesthood ban, has he offered something to ALL groups but one? I can't think of any example. Now, the fact that the one excluded group happens to be a race of people and that race of people just happens to be the race of people that most of the world felt was less than equal to the world's other races is more than a bit suspicious isn't it? Throw on top of that the fact that there were reasons given for this ban all along and every single one of those reasons has been disavowed and by golly I think we probably have our answer don't we? Is it possible that the ban was instituted of God? Yes. Is it likely? No.

"A special committee of the Twelve appointed by President McKay in 1954 to study the issue concluded that there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that the church membership was not prepared for its reversal". pg. 80

In addition, DOM wrote: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse". pg.79

Plus, in my opinion, if the second article of faith applies, why would an entire race be 'punished' for Cain's behavior?

BTW..........it was Alvin R. Dyer who was adamantly opposed to the priesthood ban reversal.

Jeff Lebowski · 12-13-2007, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I continue to be shocked at how long some will hold to the notion that the ban was likely God's will vs a misguided policy. I continue to read posts stating that God kept the priesthood from all but one tribe or that the gospel as a whole was kept within house of Israel until an appointed time as examples of times that God has "discriminated". To me there is a major and obvious difference.

Yes, God has in the past offered things to one group excluding "the many" but when, except for the Priesthood ban, has he offered something to ALL groups but one? I can't think of any example. Now, the fact that the one excluded group happens to be a race of people and that race of people just happens to be the race of people that most of the world felt was less than equal to the world's other races is more than a bit suspicious isn't it? Throw on top of that the fact that there were reasons given for this ban all along and every single one of those reasons has been disavowed and by golly I think we probably have our answer don't we? Is it possible that the ban was instituted of God? Yes. Is it likely? No.

Amen, brother. Well said.

BYU71 · 12-13-2007, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Amen, brother. Well said.

One other thing. This ban and reason was not originated as mormon theology. It was someone elses. We just held onto it longer than some others.

That too is reasonable. We believe, at least a good part believe everything done or said is God's word to man and not just policy. That is hard for some to let go of.

Not me. I think the Lord puts good CEO's in place and lets them fend for themselves for the most part. Are they Gods spokesman, you bet. Does that mean everything said is exactly as God would put it. I don't think so.

However, I understand why you wouldn't want the masses to believe that. Control would be very difficult to maintain.

Tex · 12-14-2007, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Is it possible that the ban was instituted of God? Yes. Is it likely? No.

The origin of the ban is unclear enough for me to remain agnostic on how divine it was. But there can be no question that keeping it in place was divinely sanctioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

Not me. I think the Lord puts good CEO's in place and lets them fend for themselves for the most part. Are they Gods spokesman, you bet.

These two statements are a bit of a paradox.

BYU71 · 12-14-2007, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

The origin of the ban is unclear enough for me to remain agnostic on how divine it was. But there can be no question that keeping it in place was divinely sanctioned.

These two statements are a bit of a paradox.

Apparently you don't know how companies function. The CEO is put in by the board of directors, who in turn are put in place by the owners. Who speaks for the corporation, the CEO.

MikeWaters · 12-14-2007, 01:13 PM

A universal part of God's plan--eternal families--for some reason didn't apply to the social construct of a racial group referred to as "blacks".

And this is equated the tribe of Levi performing rituals in the temple.

I still remember when as a very young man, I was thumbing through my triple combination, and was reading the 1978 declaration. It then hit me that I was alive at a time when blacks couldn't receive the priesthood. 1978. I was alive. That made an impression on me.

Another event that made an impression on me was working at a fast food restaurant as a teen with a black convert who was attending college. Morris Overstreet Junior. His father was I believe the first state-wide elected black official in Texas. Morris and I talked about this doctrine, and I admitted that it had always bothered me. It certainly bothered him. I probably offered up some of the same tired excuses, I can't remember. Years later after my mission, I learned about history and came to the exciting conclusion that I didn't have to believe that this policy was from God, that the evidence pointed to it not being of God. I wanted to find Morris and tell him. I found out that Morris left the church and had moved away, partly if not wholly due to this issue. I've never had the chance to talk to him, and I don't even know if it would make a difference. Morris I finally have the answer.

I've included Morris' name in my post in the hope that he will google his name and come across this and sign up and contact me. Then I can fulfill my promise. I told him I would look some things up, try to come to some sort of answer.

This issue is deeply personal to me. I know some don't really care, that it is as important to them as whether or not there were ever horses in South America, or whether Hugh Nibley's interpretation of the Mayan language was correct, etc. It doesn't mean much. They don't have the burden. I do.

Tex · 12-14-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

Apparently you don't know how companies function. The CEO is put in by the board of directors, who in turn are put in place by the owners. Who speaks for the corporation, the CEO.

The CEO analogy is a great one. Until it isn't.

SteelBlue · 12-14-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

But there can be no question that keeping it in place was divinely sanctioned.

Yes, it's truly amazing that men who were pro-segregation couldn't come to an agreement regarding extending the priesthood to black males.

BYU71 · 12-14-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

The CEO analogy is a great one. Until it isn't.

And when isn't it. When you decide. At what point in this conversation will you pull out the, "I was only yanking your chain card."

I think to have a serious conversation with you it would be helpful if you started each post with either, "Serious" or "yanking."

12-13-2007, 10:43 PM	#121
SteelBlue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Norcal Posts: 5,821	I continue to be shocked at how long some will hold to the notion that the ban was likely God's will vs a misguided policy. I continue to read posts stating that God kept the priesthood from all but one tribe or that the gospel as a whole was kept within house of Israel until an appointed time as examples of times that God has "discriminated". To me there is a major and obvious difference. Yes, God has in the past offered things to one group excluding "the many" but when, except for the Priesthood ban, has he offered something to ALL groups but one? I can't think of any example. Now, the fact that the one excluded group happens to be a race of people and that race of people just happens to be the race of people that most of the world felt was less than equal to the world's other races is more than a bit suspicious isn't it? Throw on top of that the fact that there were reasons given for this ban all along and every single one of those reasons has been disavowed and by golly I think we probably have our answer don't we? Is it possible that the ban was instituted of God? Yes. Is it likely? No.

12-14-2007, 01:13 PM	#127
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	A universal part of God's plan--eternal families--for some reason didn't apply to the social construct of a racial group referred to as "blacks". And this is equated the tribe of Levi performing rituals in the temple. I still remember when as a very young man, I was thumbing through my triple combination, and was reading the 1978 declaration. It then hit me that I was alive at a time when blacks couldn't receive the priesthood. 1978. I was alive. That made an impression on me. Another event that made an impression on me was working at a fast food restaurant as a teen with a black convert who was attending college. Morris Overstreet Junior. His father was I believe the first state-wide elected black official in Texas. Morris and I talked about this doctrine, and I admitted that it had always bothered me. It certainly bothered him. I probably offered up some of the same tired excuses, I can't remember. Years later after my mission, I learned about history and came to the exciting conclusion that I didn't have to believe that this policy was from God, that the evidence pointed to it not being of God. I wanted to find Morris and tell him. I found out that Morris left the church and had moved away, partly if not wholly due to this issue. I've never had the chance to talk to him, and I don't even know if it would make a difference. Morris I finally have the answer. I've included Morris' name in my post in the hope that he will google his name and come across this and sign up and contact me. Then I can fulfill my promise. I told him I would look some things up, try to come to some sort of answer. This issue is deeply personal to me. I know some don't really care, that it is as important to them as whether or not there were ever horses in South America, or whether Hugh Nibley's interpretation of the Mayan language was correct, etc. It doesn't mean much. They don't have the burden. I do.