06-22-2006, 11:31 PM | #21 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 153
|
Quote:
|
|
06-22-2006, 11:35 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
Stonewall, have you read the David O. McKay biography?
|
06-22-2006, 11:39 PM | #23 | |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
Quote:
If you don't take my word for it, here is what Brigham Young said: "I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not." (Discourses of Brigham Young, John A Widtsoe, pg. 136).
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
|
06-22-2006, 11:40 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
"It is the same" to us because the Lord has asked us to follow the guidance of the prophet the way we would follow his own guidance. Look over the chapters in Helaman where the Lord gives Nephi the sealing power-- God declares in the prescence of His angels that when Nephi speaks, he is to be obeyed as though it were God giving the command.
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
|
06-22-2006, 11:46 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
I agree with your second statement. If the church, be it the leaders, the members, or both, were able to follow brother Joseph's example, the whole thing may have never happened. You want an example of why it's important to follow the prophet, even in the littlest of things, there's a big one. Thousands, if not millions, of people have been turned away by the church, while others refuse to investigate it at all, all because we didn't follow the prophet.
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
|
06-22-2006, 11:55 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
My take on blacks and the priesthood:
I don't pretend to know what exactly went on. But based on some very solid evidence put forth in the David O. McKay bio I've come to the conclusion that the ban was a matter of policy and not doctrine. First, blacks and the priesthood was not an issue between the time of Brigham Young and David O. McKay. There were few if any blacks wanting to join the church and there were no members asking them to join. The country as a whole was racist during that time. Our church membership included on the whole. When a group of (Ghanan's or Nigerians I can't remember) found a religious tract they wrote church leadership and wanted to join. Their numbers began to swell and blacks and the priesthood became an issue. The church in South Africa wanted no part of blacks holding the priesthood. Members of the 12 worried what would happen to the church there if they granted the priesthood to blacks. The leadership struggled with changing a policy/doctrine (the 12 disagreed amongst each other) established by so great a man as BY. McKay didn't feel he could pull the trigger without a revelation that he apparently never got. We don't know exactly why. All-American attributes it to the membership of the church. I'd attribute it to both the membership and the leadership. Both Joseph Fielding and Harold B. Lee fell into the doctrine camp. Lee was on record for saying that blacks would never hold the priesthood while he was prophet. As the years passed, the issue became an ISSUE. When Kimball took the reins the issue could not be ignored. A revelation was the only way to bring them all into agreement. The Lord finally gave it. Why so late? I'm of the opinion that after McKay, Kimball may have been the first one to ask. My point I guess is that it was only an issue for about 15 or 16 years. Prior to that nobody cared. Not whites, not blacks. Nobody had to spend time explaining why. There were theories put forth as to why BY had instituted the policy. All of these theories have been disavowed by today's church/brethren. |
06-23-2006, 12:04 AM | #27 | |
I must not tell lies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
|
Quote:
|
|
06-23-2006, 01:32 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
This, to me, is exactly the same discussion we had regarding the church's "policy" about the SSM amendment. Out of curiousity, does anyone here feel that the priesthood ban was just a policy but feel strongly that the SSM amendment is doctrine? If so, I am interested (legitimately) in hearing why. |
|
06-23-2006, 03:51 AM | #29 | |
Master
|
Quote:
__________________
Ernie Johnson: "Auburn is a pretty good school. To graduate from there I suppose you really need to work hard and put forth maximum effort." Charles Barkley: "20 pts and 10 rebounds will get you through also!" |
|
06-23-2006, 04:12 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,175
|
Quote:
For the record, I also completely agree with grape. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|