06-23-2006, 06:42 AM | #31 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Honestly, I have no idea what in the hell you said/mean in your second sentence here. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
||||||
06-23-2006, 10:04 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Memphis freakin' Tennessee!!!!!
Posts: 4,530
|
Amen and amen, Steelblue. Amen and amen.
__________________
Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!! Religion rises inevitably from our apprehension of our own death. To give meaning to meaninglessness is the endless quest of all religion. When death becomes the center of our consciousness, then religion authentically begins. Of all religions that I know, the one that most vehemently and persuasively defies and denies the reality of death is the original Mormonism of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Joseph Smith. |
06-23-2006, 02:01 PM | #33 |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
Steelblue: Thanks for the long explanation that I was too lazy to write. Well done.
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
06-23-2006, 02:37 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
I think the priesthood ban most likely was a result of racism. Most likely a combination of racism at the top of the church and widespread throughout. Whether Brigham has the majority of the blame, I can't say, but he makes a good punching bag, so why not? The Jew/Gentile thing is the most obvious precedent. The Lord himself declared the gospel to be only for the Jews at first. He's obviously not racist, but it might have been done to make it easier to swallow for his racist Jewish disciples--they were asked to swallow a lot already. At some point, though, it became the Lord's will to allow the gospel to go to Gentiles. Peter resisted it. Clear precedent for racist church leadership. Also--no big deal--it's expected. We're talking about humans here. Racism is what we humans do. Now this business of "the Lord will never allow a prophet to lead the church astray"... Many LDS seem to equate this or nearly equate this to prophet infallability. It's much easier to have blind faith in a prophet if you believe he's infallable. Much tougher if you acknowledge he's human, and even more glaring to identify specific mistakes prophets made in the past. Added to this is that the current prophet will rarely call out a former prophet, even when it's generally believed what they said or did was wrong. So we're never quite sure if it's OK to bash on Brigham or Joseph for saying something dumb. I'll stick to the canon and the teachings of the living prophet, as stated over the pulpit in conference. Anything else is open season for me to shoot down if it fits my own view. |
|
06-23-2006, 03:07 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
Many blacks came into the Utah valley after the saints had established themselves, and the previous anti-slave mormons, returned to the idea that it was ok to possess slaves. Elijah Abel and other black mormons had petitioned the council of the twelve multiple times to be allowed to be sealed, participate in temple worship, etc, all being denied. Can you imagine the heartache, the confusion, etc, these saints must have felt? Elijah Abel was good enough to hang with Joseph, was allowed to do baptisms for the dead, was called on three missions, was given the priesthood, yet was not allowed to receive the saving ordinances of the gospel. His posterity was considered, 'white,' and his countenance had changed to a 'whiter,' complexion. My point is, that the issue started in the 1800's and was consistently reinforced throughtout the 1900's, to the point where the leadership was so worried about it that J. Rueben Clarke didn't want black people giving blood to Utah hospitals because he didn't want black blood being introduced into a white person's body. Racism in the church abounded for over one hundred years and unfortunately for Utah, for the church, for many blacks, and for many whites, they will abstain from the restored gospel because of the issues certain leaders had. I would think the Lord would give extreme amount of concessions for the people that struggle with this idea in the afterlife. |
|
06-23-2006, 03:14 PM | #36 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 153
|
Quote:
|
|
06-23-2006, 03:17 PM | #37 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 153
|
Quote:
|
|
06-23-2006, 03:18 PM | #38 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 153
|
Quote:
|
|
06-23-2006, 03:36 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
Joseph obviously decreed that all men could get the priesthood and is quoted as saying some highly progressive ideals about blacks..... Five years after his death Brigham said that black men the seed of Cain, and said that black men could not receive the priesthood..... Twenty years after Brigham's death Joseph Fielding Smith said that blacks were less faithful in the pre-life and thus were marked and weren't given the priesthood in the probation.... Soon after this, Harold B. Lee says, blacks will not receive the priesthood in my lifetime..... Fifty years later, Gordon B. Hinckley says in priesthood, anyone who thinks that somebody isn't eligible for the priesthood based on skin color is a racist and that is abhorable before God.... So please, tell me why the change in doctrine. Why was it doctrine that men were equals regardless of color and slavery was abhorable, and than slavery was ok and blacks were subhumans, and than blacks were less faithful in the pre-existence, and than now it's not of God to withhold priesthood based on race.... |
|
06-23-2006, 04:06 PM | #40 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 153
|
Quote:
Fus, I don't know the answer, but neither do you or anyone else on this board. From statements made by early church leaders, it would appear that they don't know the answer either. I do have a couple thoughts. It's been suggested that members of the Church were racist and weren't ready for blacks to have the priesthood (and we've both agreed that if that were the case it's a very sad thing). That's a possible explanation, but that's all it is, a possibility. We, as members of the Church, don't have to have an answer for everything. We don't have to have perfect understanding of everything. Faith has to play some role, but members have a hard time with that. So, they press their leaders with incessants "Why?" I'm sure than in many instances the leaders may not have an answer either. I believe that may have been the situation with some of the statements early leaders made, they were trying, with the best they had, to provide an explanation. We can have complete confidence in our prophet. Is he infallible? Of course he's not (even Joseph Smith wasn't, he was responsible fo the loss 116 pages of manuscript). The Lord leads the Church by the prophet. It's not up to us to pick and choose which directives of the prophet we follow - the safe course is to follow all of them. We also know, that if a prophet begins to lead the Church astray, he'll be removed from office. We know that a prophet speaking as prophet, speaks the Lord's will. Does that mean he's perfect? No. But it does mean that when he speaks in his capacity as prophet he is right. Did the Church do some things that appear racist? It did. Does that mean that it was racism that 'inspired' the policy/doctrine of the ban? It doesn't. We're some of the leaders racist? Probably. However, this is the Lord's Church, and He uses imperfect mortals to serve in it. A loving, merciful Lord, wouldn't allow his prophet, to completely remove the opportunity to be full participating members of the Church unless it were his will. I don't understand this and some day, I'll get to ask why, but until then, declaring that the prophets are racist and that's what brought about the policy is absurd. I'm not sure, at least I'm getting the strong impression here, that many downplay the necessity of a living prophet. We know from the past, what happens when there isn't a prophet. It's not up to us to pick and choose which doctrines we like/don't like or will obey/not obey, ours is to follow. The 12 are a great example. I know they don't agree about everything, but when President Hinckley tells them how something is going to be, they all fall in line and follow his lead, whether or not it was what they thought was the correct course of action. I for one am grateful to have a living prophet because the Church would fall apart without one. I'm grateful there's prophet to explain how I need to live. I feel very safe and comfortable CHOOSING to follow the prophet. I guess we might just have to agree to disagree because I refuse to stone the previous prophets because I don't understand something the Lord did through them. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|