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.

[myboynoah]

Amen and amen, Steelblue. Amen and amen.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Steelblue: Thanks for the long explanation that I was too lazy to write. Well done.

[jay santos]

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?

This is an interesting topic for me, so I'll give my take, though I don't have a lot to add to what's been said.

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.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

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.

I agree with your post, until the idea it was a 15 year ban. Brigham started teaching about the seed of Cain, and all hell broke lose. In fact, before Brigham taught about this, a member had petitioned Joseph Smith on why a black man was allowed to have the priesthood, unfortunately before a response was given Joseph was killed.

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.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by All-American

I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this issue. Nobody here has disputed the idea that the scriptures are true, and nobody has disputed the idea that the prophets are fallible. There has to be a reconciliation of the two appositve ideas, one way or another.

"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.

Either you misunderstood me, or your response was suppose to go somewhere else...

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Are we to assume that Joseph Smith's association with Elijah Abel and other blacks was not done while speaking as the prophet, but subsequent opposition by succeeding church leaders was in fact done while speaking as the prophet?

It's possible that all statements were made while speaking as prophet.

[stonewallperry]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The lord historically has withheld priesthood and gospel blessings from several groups of people it's not just a recent thing.

Great post

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

It's possible that all statements were made while speaking as prophet.

So how do you reconcile it? Let's agree that the priesthood ban was from God and was doctrine.....

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....

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

So how do you reconcile it? Let's agree that the priesthood ban was from God and was doctrine.....

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....

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.