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

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Oh brother.

That's the best you've got? Not even an attempt? Wow, clearly it's hard because what you're saying isn't lining up real well with it.

[SteelBlue]

Stonewall, have you read the David O. McKay biography?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

That's the best you've got? Not even an attempt? Wow, clearly it's hard because what you're saying isn't lining up real well with it.

No, I think I addressed it above. When prophets are in fact "speaking for the Lord" what they say is indeed scripture. You are clearly implying that prophets are infallible and are speaking for Lord in all circumstances. I think you are wrong.

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).

[All-American]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

That's the best you've got? Not even an attempt? Wow, clearly it's hard because what you're saying isn't lining up real well with it.

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.

[All-American]

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?

It's more than sad. Even so, we would be wise not to judge church members by our standards. Who knows but that a generation or two from now, church members will be gathered together lamenting the close minded members who could see past _________ in the year 2006.

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.

[SteelBlue]

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.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

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.

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?

[Cali Coug]

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?

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.

[Surfah]

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.

Holy shiznit. I never thought I'd ever say this, but amen. Grapevine summed up my sentiments on this issue perfectly. The bottom line is the Lord has always been selective of who holds his priesthood. That's why this has always been a non issue for me.

[JohnnyLingo]

Holy shiznit. I never thought I'd ever say this, but amen. Grapevine summed up my sentiments on this issue perfectly.

It takes a big man to admit that you agree with someone who is vastly unpopular. Good for you, surfah.

For the record, I also completely agree with grape.