I was sort of baffled by the black guy that quoted John Taylor

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I know and I already feel bad about it. I told myself I would stay out of these threads because there is just too much crazy stuff you can bring up. Its not really fair of me and I think I need to go and repent.

Funny stuff nonetheless. If it weren't so horrendous. The Negro and the Cadillac. Where'd he come up with that?

[fusnik11]

I'm interested in knowing those, like Mex and Indy, who believe their might have been a celestial reason behind the priesthood ban, think about Elijah Abel?

I think I need Tex to straighten me out, here's a rough timeline, based on memory and not at all comprehensive:

1832?: Elijah Abel given the priesthood

1836: Elijah Abel made a 70

1842: Elijah Abel serves first mission

1844: Joseph Smith runs for President, wants abolition

1853: Denied endowment by Brigham Young

So without gettting quotes by Joseph Smith that talked of equality between blacks and whites, which for the time highly progressive and almost extremist, what happened in God's policy from 1832 when Elijah was baptized and 1853 when he was denied endowment rights by Brigham Young?

Did the Lord under Joseph Smith think it was kosher for blacks to be priesthood holders and 20 years later reminded Brigham that certain restrictions should be applied, or certain peoples were not ready for the priesthood?

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I'm interested in knowing those, like Mex and Indy, who believe their might have been a celestial reason behind the priesthood ban, think about Elijah Abel?

I think I need Tex to straighten me out, here's a rough timeline, based on memory and not at all comprehensive:

1832?: Elijah Abel given the priesthood

1836: Elijah Abel made a 70

1842: Elijah Abel serves first mission

1844: Joseph Smith runs for President, wants abolition

1853: Denied endowment by Brigham Young

So without gettting quotes by Joseph Smith that talked of equality between blacks and whites, which for the time highly progressive and almost extremist, what happened in God's policy from 1832 when Elijah was baptized and 1853 when he was denied endowment rights by Brigham Young?

Did the Lord under Joseph Smith think it was kosher for blacks to be priesthood holders and 20 years later reminded Brigham that certain restrictions should be applied, or certain peoples were not ready for the priesthood?

Well maybe God played the numbers game and realized that he could grant the priesthood to one black man, but lose the faith and membership of x number of white men. Since the church membership needed to grow and strengthen, and with race being an issue that could potentially rip them apart, perhaps God chose to delay bestowing those blessings on black men, until the political, cultural climate of the white membership humbled themselves enough to let it happen. I don't think any of us today really believe that black men were denied the priesthood because of some inherent unworthiness related to their genetic makeup. Which leads us to the conclusion that potentially our leaders were so racist that they maliciously denied them those blessings, which I find to be sort of unlikely. If God could order Brigham Young to jeapordize his marriage by taking multiple wives, and have BY follow through, why couldn't he have granted blacks the priesthood. I think it's offensive to question his, and other prophets obedience.

I personally think that the unfortunate truth is that the white membership couldn't handle it, the political climate didn't lend itself to it, and the church was young and small and ill-prepared to deal with a contraversial issue of that magnitude. Therefore the black men were denied a significant blessing, and we can all be grateful that we live in a time when it is no longer expected, or acceptable to discriminate based on color.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Well maybe God played the numbers game and realized that he could grant the priesthood to one black man, but lose the faith and membership of x number of white men. Since the church membership needed to grow and strengthen, and with race being an issue that could potentially rip them apart, perhaps God chose to delay bestowing those blessings on black men, until the political, cultural climate of the white membership humbled themselves enough to let it happen. I don't think any of us today really believe that black men were denied the priesthood because of some inherent unworthiness related to their genetic makeup. Which leads us to the conclusion that potentially our leaders were so racist that they maliciously denied them those blessings, which I find to be sort of unlikely. If God could order Brigham Young to jeapordize his marriage by taking multiple wives, and have BY follow through, why couldn't he have granted blacks the priesthood. I think it's offensive to question his, and other prophets obedience.

I personally think that the unfortunate truth is that the white membership couldn't handle it, the political climate didn't lend itself to it, and the church was young and small and ill-prepared to deal with a contraversial issue of that magnitude. Therefore the black men were denied a significant blessing, and we can all be grateful that we live in a time when it is no longer expected, or acceptable to discriminate based on color.

That explanation could suffice, if it weren't for the multitude of racist comments from Brigham Young to Mark E. Petersen claiming the black man was genetically less righteous.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Well maybe God played the numbers game and realized that he could grant the priesthood to one black man, but lose the faith and membership of x number of white men. ...

I personally think that the unfortunate truth is that the white membership couldn't handle it, the political climate didn't lend itself to it, and the church was young and small and ill-prepared to deal with a contraversial issue of that magnitude. Therefore the black men were denied a significant blessing...

Cool. God meets Machiavelli. I like it!

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Cool. God meets Machiavelli. I like it!

Exactly. That explanation just doesn't cut it for me.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I think you're stretching the definition of "following council".

Brigham said it was the Law of God not his own thoughts or "council". He said it was the Law of God and it would always be so.

Or is this law just like the law to not see R rated movies?

Your line of reasoning also suggests that if Joseph said gay sex was OK from the ages of 16 to 18, but nobody really took him up on it, and a prophet 75 years later changed it, then all is OK the church was never led astray because nobodies salvation was jeapordized? What about the teaching itself?

Again BY said it was the Law of God. Not popular opinion, or his personal bias. He also said that it would always be so.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I'm interested in knowing those, like Mex and Indy, who believe their might have been a celestial reason behind the priesthood ban, think about Elijah Abel?

I think I need Tex to straighten me out, here's a rough timeline, based on memory and not at all comprehensive:

1832?: Elijah Abel given the priesthood

1836: Elijah Abel made a 70

1842: Elijah Abel serves first mission

1844: Joseph Smith runs for President, wants abolition

1853: Denied endowment by Brigham Young

So without gettting quotes by Joseph Smith that talked of equality between blacks and whites, which for the time highly progressive and almost extremist, what happened in God's policy from 1832 when Elijah was baptized and 1853 when he was denied endowment rights by Brigham Young?

Did the Lord under Joseph Smith think it was kosher for blacks to be priesthood holders and 20 years later reminded Brigham that certain restrictions should be applied, or certain peoples were not ready for the priesthood?

Heh ... a "celestial reason" ... too funny.

The only thing I've really advocated here is not to factor God out of the discussion. We've all been talking like Brigham Young, etc. were a bunch of nasty, evil racists, and the God of Heaven just threw his hands up and said, "Can't do much with these bozos ... we'll just have to wait for Spencer!"

God could've changed the policy if God "wanted" to. Why didn't he? Who knows ... couldn't tell you. I'm not him. But I don't believe every prophet from Smith to Lee went "renegade" on the issue. Moreover (and more importantly), I don't think we should be suggesting such to new investigators and members whose testimonies can be quite fragile.

To believe otherwise is really to deny the prophetic call.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Indy defending racism? Hmm. grapevine hasn't been posting during this, so hmm.

I've been defending racism? That's what I've been doing? Really?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh ... a "celestial reason" ... too funny.

Does the word celestial not imply God?

Which leads right into this paragraph....

Originally Posted by Tex

The only thing I've really advocated here is not to factor God out of the discussion. We've all been talking like Brigham Young, etc. were a bunch of nasty, evil racists, and the God of Heaven just threw his hands up and said, "Can't do much with these bozos ... we'll just have to wait for Spencer!"

Thus my question, why the change in God? Why was he ok with giving the priesthood to a black man, incorporating him into His church's leadership, only to take the privilege away for a black man to pass the sacrament twenty years later?