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

[fusnik11]

on blacks and their ability to hold the priesthood.

Interestingly enough one of the most refreshing things about the prophet was his ability to see past skin color.

-He allowed Elijah Abel to stay with his family

-He was intimately associated with Elijah Abel

-Elijah Abel was one of the men at the death bed of his father

-Stated, 'Go to Cincinnati and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has rise by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability.'

-Appointed Abel as an undertaker in Nauvoo

-Allowed Abel to have the priesthood, advance to the office of a Seventy, (different than our seventies today) and allowed him to serve two full time missions. (Abel served three, the last he fell ill, and right before his mission was denied the rights to enter the temple but was called to serve a mission)

Now, an honest question, is it acceptable to say that Brigham and his fellow apostles were completely wrong in the way they treated subsequent blacks? Does this prove that apostles and the prophet can lead the church astray in certain aspects? Does it cement the apostles, who commented numerous times, on the 'fence sitting negro,' as ignorant or as racists?

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

on blacks and their ability to hold the priesthood.

Interestingly enough one of the most refreshing things about the prophet was his ability to see past skin color.

-He allowed Elijah Abel to stay with his family

-He was intimately associated with Elijah Abel

-Elijah Abel was one of the men at the death bed of his father

-Stated, 'Go to Cincinnati and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has rise by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability.'

-Appointed Abel as an undertaker in Nauvoo

-Allowed Abel to have the priesthood, advance to the office of a Seventy, (different than our seventies today) and allowed him to serve two full time missions. (Abel served three, the last he fell ill, and right before his mission was denied the rights to enter the temple but was called to serve a mission)

Now, an honest question, is it acceptable to say that Brigham and his fellow apostles were completely wrong in the way they treated subsequent blacks? Does this prove that apostles and the prophet can lead the church astray in certain aspects? Does it cement the apostles, who commented numerous times, on the 'fence sitting negro,' as ignorant or as racists?

First, I'll say that I think this is an extremely difficult topic, because I don't think that any of us really knows why it was the way it was. And that's okay, we don't have to know everything to know it's true, and not understanding something doesn't make it wrong.

Now for your questions:

It is not acceptable to say BY and subsequent apostles were completely wrong.

This does not prove that apostles and prophets can lead the Church astray.

And it does not make any apostles racist.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

First, I'll say that I think this is an extremely difficult topic, because I don't think that any of us really knows why it was the way it was. And that's okay, we don't have to know everything to know it's true, and not understanding something doesn't make it wrong.

Now for your questions:

It is not acceptable to say BY and subsequent apostles were completely wrong.

This does not prove that apostles and prophets can lead the Church astray.

And it does not make any apostles racist.

Please give me explanations for your rationale. I don't quite follow. You have the prophet of the restoration, the originator for most doctrine of the church allowing blacks to be priesthood holders. His followers morph his teachings/example into a 'doctrine' that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence, they are sons of Cain and won't be forgiven until the next life, etc, how does this not constitute an 'apostacy' of ideals or doctrine?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

First, I'll say that I think this is an extremely difficult topic, because I don't think that any of us really knows why it was the way it was. And that's okay, we don't have to know everything to know it's true, and not understanding something doesn't make it wrong.

Now for your questions:

It is not acceptable to say BY and subsequent apostles were completely wrong.

This does not prove that apostles and prophets can lead the Church astray.

And it does not make any apostles racist.

Well, I've got to say that I admire your ability to break down even the most complex issues into such simple black and white terms. Must make life awfully simple for you.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Well, I've got to say that I admire your ability to break down even the most complex issues into such simple black and white terms. Must make life awfully simple for you.

Sorry if that sounds overly pretentious.

I guess what I am trying to say is: would you care to explain your positions in a bit more detail.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Please give me explanations for your rationale. I don't quite follow. You have the prophet of the restoration, the originator for most doctrine of the church allowing blacks to be priesthood holders. His followers morph his teachings/example into a 'doctrine' that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence, they are sons of Cain and won't be forgiven until the next life, etc, how does this not constitute an 'apostacy' of ideals or doctrine?

I just finished Rough Stone Rolling and was very interested to read his quote that if blacks were exchanged with whites in their position in society at birth, they would be equally as industrious and intelligent as whites (obvious today, but back then very radical).

I tend to think that a lot of the church policies regarding blacks stemmed from racism of Brigham Young. Smith was opposed to slavery and viewed blacks as just another son or daughter of God. Young had differing views, and I think his views may have bled into church doctrine.

I can't ever understand why so many following prophets adhered to Young's policies and statements on the issue while ignoring Smith's. The only conclusion I can come to is racism.

It doesn't mean they weren't prophets. It just means they were human. I think we do a great disservice to the church when we elevate prophets to the level of infallibility as so many do today. Smith had lots of faults, faults I wasn't really aware of until I read Rough Stone Rolling. I think the church would be better served to show us that the prophet is just a man with a very important calling, still subject to error and prejudice. To me, it makes the prophet that much more accessible and gives me more confidence that I can make it.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

First, I'll say that I think this is an extremely difficult topic, because I don't think that any of us really knows why it was the way it was. And that's okay, we don't have to know everything to know it's true, and not understanding something doesn't make it wrong.

Now for your questions:

It is not acceptable to say BY and subsequent apostles were completely wrong.

This does not prove that apostles and prophets can lead the Church astray.

And it does not make any apostles racist.

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

I'd like an explanation/reaction to this scripture before I comment.

[ute4ever]

It was the Lord's will to repress the blacks and Joseph Smith was trying to trump Him?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'll bite.

Many prophets, including BY, have stated that we should attempt to get a spiritual confirmation on whether or not what a church leader tells us in fact true; i.e., whether or not said prophet was truly speaking for the Lord in a particular instance. This implies that prophets are human and fallible.

If you are going to argue that prophets are infallible, then I say good luck. You have a tough job ahead of you.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

It was the Lord's will to repress the blacks and Joseph Smith was trying to trump Him?

Wow, what an answer. I guess if you've got no explanation you just don't say anything intelligent.