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

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

"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.

So the Lord said, Joseph, my black sons can hold the priesthood and subsequently said....

Brigham, Joseph Fielding, dem der black folk, were void of spirits, werent very good listeners in the pre-life and are down right half human, no priesthood for dem....

[Jeff Lebowski]

Question for you, stonewall:

Leaving aside the priesthood issue for just a second, do you feel it is "racist" for a place of business (restaurant, market, hotel, etc.) to refuse service to blacks, solely on the issue of race/skin color?

[All-American]

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?

Here's my honest answer:

The issue, as far as I can tell, is the result of imperfect members of the church. Upon reading David O. McKay's biography, it seemed very clear that were it entirely up to him, he would have changed the priesthood ban. It seems to me that the members of the church simply were not ready for it. The Lord waited for the hearts of the members of His church to soften to the extent that they could accept the policy.

Whether this weakness can be specifically attributed to any one member, from the recently baptized eight year-old to Brigham Young himself, doesn't really bother me. The fact that a leader of the church who very passionately wanted to change the policy and could not receive approval to do so tells me that the problem extended well beyond Brigham Young, irrespective of how much it involved him.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by homeboy

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.

I don't thing that implies prophets are infallible (I'm not arugueing that they're perfect, but I don't believe that's what the scripture says). I believe the reason we are encouraged to gain a testimony for ourselves is we're more likely to follow and want to follow if we've had a spiritual confirmation for ourselves.

I believe prophets make mistakes, yes. But I don't believe prophets make mistakes that cause millions of people to be unable to participate as a full member in the Lord's Kingdom. I believe the fact that many prophets after BY continued with the ban only strengthens the position that this wasn't some, "Oops, I really messed things up" by BY.

It's right there, in the scriptures, that the voice of the Lord's servants, when speaking as prophet, is the same as the Lord speaking.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Question for you, stonewall:

Leaving aside the priesthood issue for just a second, do you feel it is "racist" for a place of business (restaurant, market, hotel, etc.) to refuse service to blacks, solely on the issue of race/skin color?

Of course! I'll answer your next question so you don't have to ask it and because I'm getting ready to leave work. "Wouldn't that mean it's racist for the Lord to not allow the blacks to have the priesthood?"

My answer: no. The Lord is perfect. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong. Remind me where the Lord said that He would clearly explain everything He does/thinks to us.

My response to Fus: Could all black members in Joseph's day hold the priesthood, or was it only a select few...honest question.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by All-American

Here's my honest answer:

The issue, as far as I can tell, is the result of imperfect members of the church. Upon reading David O. McKay's biography, it seemed very clear that were it entirely up to him, he would have changed the priesthood ban. It seems to me that the members of the church simply were not ready for it. The Lord waited for the hearts of the members of His church to soften to the extent that they could accept the policy.

What a sad indictment on the general membership of the church up until 25 plus years ago.

Here's the rub AA, if the early church leadership would have followed the example of fellowship, friendship, and trust in blacks as Joseph did, would the hearts of the general membership need to be softened?

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

What a sad indictment on the general membership of the church up until 25 plus years ago.

Here's the rub AA, if the early church leadership would have followed the example of fellowship, friendship, and trust in blacks as Joseph did, would the hearts of the general membership need to be softened?

I like that idea...the members were weak/racist and because of that the Lord waited to extend the priesthood blessings. This seems like the most reasonable idea I've heard. As you said Fus, sad indictment if that were the case.

I think a prophet can only have so much effect on the members. As clearly shown here on CG, people don't follow the prophet unless they agree with him and understand why he teaches something.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

Of course! I'll answer your next question so you don't have to ask it and because I'm getting ready to leave work. "Wouldn't that mean it's racist for the Lord to not allow the blacks to have the priesthood?"

Actually, that is not my next question. My next question is: are you aware that up until the early 60's, the Hotel Utah (owned and operated by the LDS church) did not allow blacks to visit the hotel? This was done with full knowledge and consent of the top leaders of the church.

Clearly, this was a racist policy. And to a certain degree it was a product of the times in which they lived.

So if they could err with this policy (please educate me if you don't agree it was an error), then why not concede the possibility that there could be some error in the other policy? Or at the least, concede the possibility that apostles (just like the rest of us) can be racist at times.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Actually, that is not my next question. My next question is: are you aware that up until the early 60's, the Hotel Utah (owned and operated by the LDS church) did not allow blacks to visit the hotel? This was done with full knowledge and consent of the top leaders of the church.

Clearly, this was a racist policy. And to a certain degree it was a product of the times in which they lived.

So if they could err with this policy (please educate me if you don't agree it was an error), then why not concede the possibility that there could be some error in the other policy? Or at the least, concede the possibility that apostles (just like the rest of us) can be racist at times.

The policy of the Church in managing a hotel is not on the same level as Church doctrine. I'm sure they can be racist sometimes, but prophets do not make mistakes when they set Church policies (and like I said, I don't include hotel management as a doctrinal policy, rather a business one).

And, no one yet has explained to me how all this is possible given the scripture I quoted. So the Lord was just kidding in the Doctrine & Covenants or now the scriptures aren't all true?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

The policy of the Church in managing a hotel is not on the same level as Church doctrine. I'm sure they can be racist sometimes, but prophets do not make mistakes when they set Church policies (and like I said, I don't include hotel management as a doctrinal policy, rather a business one).

Aha. So they can be racist when it is a business policy, but are incapable of doing so with a church policy?

And David O McKay publicly stated (late in life) that he believed it was a policy and not a doctrine. Hugh B. Brown argued long and hard that it was a policy and not a doctrine. A detailed study of the genesis and history of the ban clearly implies (IMO) that it was a policy, not a doctrine.

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

And, no one yet has explained to me how all this is possible given the scripture I quoted. So the Lord was just kidding in the Doctrine & Covenants or now the scriptures aren't all true?

Oh brother.