Close Topic Options

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 19

I didn't know there are members in the present time who believe Blacks weren't as valiant as the rest of the races during the preexistance. It saddens me a lot because I don't think people should go around saying those sort of things. One of the best quotes I can think of and I wish would have been said during the time of Presidents J. Smith and B. Young was something our dear President Hinckley said:

Love,
RosieMae

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Just because G-d allowed the restriction to stay in place for such a long time, does it mean he was responsible for its placement?

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon

As I said, we sustain him as the President of the Church, and the President of the Church is the President of the High Priesthood. As such, he has authority to decide who shall get the priesthood and who shall not. We vote upon what shall be accepted as scripture, but where do you get the idea that doctrines must be voted upon in order be accepted as official? When did we ever vote upon the doctrine of eternal progression, or the doctrine of a heavenly mother, or that women cannot hold the priesthood, or that High Priests can serve as Seventies? Obviously there are a great many doctrines that have never been voted upon and accepted by the Church as scripture, and nowhere do the scriptures ever say that every doctrine of the Church must be voted upon. What the scriptures do way is that:

No mention of a vote of any kind.

As I said, every revelation that the Prophet receives is not presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. When was the revelation saying that only men could receive temple ordinances for men and that only women could receive temple ordinances for women ever voted upon? When was the revelation saying that we could perform ordinances for people other than our own ancestors ever voted upon? David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee both received revelations saying that it was not yet time to give the priesthood to the blacks, but when were those revelations ever voted upon? If the Prophet receives a revelation that a certain man should be called to be a Mission President or a Temple President or that another man should have his calling and election made sure, are those revelations voted upon? Of course not. The Prophet Joseph Smith received a great many revelations that were never voted upon, and many of those have been published. It has never been the case that every revelation received by the Prophet was voted upon.

What difference does it make? That's just a matter of definition. How do you define doctrine and how do you define policy? And often times definitions can overlap, so that something could be both a doctrine and a policy. Thus, one man could say it was a doctrine, and another man could say that it was a policy, and they could both be right.

Yes, "Possible error." Please note that he did not say that it was an error but only that it was a "Possible error." That means that he did not know whether it was an error or not. In spite of Spencer W. Kimball's ignorance as to whether or not it was an error, I have a personal testimony that it was no error at all but that it was the will of the Lord. I have already quoted statements of both David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee saying that they both had prayed and asked the Lord about whether or not the blacks should be ordained to the priesthood and that they both received the same answer from the Lord, which was, "Not yet." If Spencer W. Kimball had known what we know, then maybe he would have known, as I do, that it was no "Possible error."

Where does it ever say that? You have a bad habit of just making stuff up as you go along without ever giving any support for what you say. If, as you say, policies do not need a sustaining vote, then why were we asked to sustain the policy that allowed blacks to hold the priesthood?

And there is no account of him saying that blacks had a right to hold the priesthood. What we do know is that he gave the Church scriptures that very clearly state that Pharaoh was cursed as pertaining to the priesthood because of his lineage, which was Canaanite, that the Canaanites were black, that they were the seed of Cain, that the prophet, Enoch would not even preach to them, and that there was a particular lineage that had a right to hold the priesthood, which very clearly implies that there is one that does not.

People who knew him quoted him as saying that the blacks could not hold the priesthood, and the Lord has said that "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (D&C 6:28) Thus, according to the word of the Lord, the fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith clearly taught that blacks cannot hold the Priesthood has been clearly established, whether you like it or not.

That's more than enough proof for you. You don't need evidence to support your position because your mind is already made up. True scholars have a saying that goes like this: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That means that just because you have not found evidence for something, that does not necessarily mean that evidence doesn't exist or that it might not be found sometime in the future. Thus, the absence of evidence proves nothing.

Andrew Jenson, Assistant Church Historian, said that Elijah Abel was "Ordained an Elder March 3, 1836, and a Seventy April 4, 1841, an exception being made in his case with regard to the general rule of the Church in relation to colored people." (Andrew Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, 3:577.

Thus, it was clearly understood by the Church Historian's Department that the ordination of Elijah Abel was an exception to the rule. An exception does not prove there was no rule anymore than the Lord commanding Nephi to slay Laban proves that there was no rule against murder. Even you will admit that the rule of the Church from the time of Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball was that blacks could not hold the priesthood. Nevertheless, Elijah Abel's son and grandson were both ordained to the priesthood during that time. Why? Because they were exceptions to the rule, just as Elijah Abel had been. As I said, exceptions don't prove that there was no rule.

So what? During your lifetime, many murders have been committed. Does that prove that you either knew about those murders or approved of them? Obviously not. Likewise, there is no evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith either knew of or approved of those ordinations.

I don't care what Elder Holland says. There is only one man on earth who has authority to speak for the Church, and that man is the Prophet--not Elder Holland.

No, it's not "Mental gymnastics." It's something called logic. What the quote (D&C 113:8) does say is that there was a particular lineage which had a right to the priesthood by virtue of their lineage. Native speakers of English know that means that there is a lineage or lineages that do NOT have a right to the priesthood by virtue of their lineage. That's just pure logic.

No, they are not "Theories." They are scriptures and teaching of modern day prophets, such as David O. McKay.

The Prophet Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Harold B. Lee, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie all taught that the scriptures take precedence over anything that anyone, including even the Prophet, himself, might say. I just prefer to believe the scriptures rather than some anonymous article on the internet.

That's because I have read and believe the teachings of previous prophets on the subject. If you think that my interpretation of the scriptures is mine alone, then you are wrong. It is also the interpretation of previous prophets of the Church. If they were wrong, then that means the living prophets could also be wrong, so how can we have faith in anything they say? My position is that both previous prophets and living prophets are inspired of God and both are right.

Since it has never been voted upon as scripture and does not even bear the signature of any general authority of the Church, much less the living prophet, it certainly cannot be as authoritative as the scriptures.

WHO is speaking officially for the Church? And why don't they sign their names to it? If they don't sign their name to it, then how can we know that they have authority to speak for the Church? The First Presidency of the Church signed their names to OD 2, so why not this article? Could it be that they didn't write it, and the person who did does not have authority to speak for the whole church?

So the scriptures and the teachings of former prophets are "Theories"? Are they disavowing the scriptures and the teachings of the previous prophets? I didn't see where they said that in the article.

I'm sorry, but I am not overwhelmed. Therefore, when you say that the evidence is "Overwhelming," You are clearly wrong.

No, not my interpretations but the interpretation of people such as David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith who were prophets of God.

Only the President of the Church has authority to speak for the Church, and I have not heard him say that he does not know, and even if he did not know, all he would have to do is to ask the Lord. He's a prophet of God, isn't he? So, if he doesn't know, then why doesn't he ask the Lord?

Message Edited...
Persephone: Directed sarcasm removed. Please see: The Art Of Discussion

Page 19 Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Name: Paul B.

Comments:

So if tomorrow the prophet of the mormon church decides that he doesn't want blue-eye men holding the priesthood he has the authority to stop them from receiving it? Is this a church or a cult? I thought mormons were intelligent people and they would at least inquire and try to find out for themselves if what this man is saying is right instead of just accepting what he says as the will of God.

Isn't Holland the man who was in the PBS show about mormons? Isn't he considered an apostle and also a prophet in your church? Why would you say you don't care what he says when he's also a prophet? Don't you think your church would straighten any misleading teaching if one of their people states such in public? But the mormon church didn't say anything about it, its more they obviously sent him to talk about it.

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Those are policies not doctrine. As Cheeky pointed out, policies don't need a sustaining vote. Not even the Proclamation to the Family is doctrine but I don't doubt that soon enough will be included in our scripture set.

Those were answers to prayers? What is the membership supposed to vote about?

Wonderful point Tragula. It's actually very true. Past Prophets and leaders gave these scriptures the same interpretation you're giving them, having said that I'm afraid to say that the present Church has tried slowly to detach themselves from these past statements done by early leaders and I don't blame them.

Another point you bring is if they were wrong then it means the living prophets could also be wrong and I think that's a very hard thing to accept for the average member but yes living prophets could be wrong and still be prophets.

In this forum there is this long discussion about it called "The Prophet said so, is that enough?"

I don't recall if it was McKay or Kimball who said something like "God calls the prophet but doesn't take away the man". How can we know the difference? Through the Holy Ghost. We are given the Holy Ghost which also acts as a spirit of discernment. Instead of just rushing to follow whatever we're taught it would be wise if we take a little time to ponder and pray to receive our own testimony about these things.

I believe with regards to the Priesthood restriction, that Brigham Young imposed the ban at least (In part) due to racial prejudice towards African-Americans, his mindset was of a typical 19th century man. I don't think people should judge him or bash him but should try harder to understand the context.

Message Edited...
Support: Link added.

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood

RosieMay:

I think you misunderstand. The scriptures only apply to blacks who lived and died prior to 1978, not to those who are alive now.

RosieMae:

I'll tell you what saddens me--people who don't believe the very plain meaning of the scriptures and who say that the priesthood ban was a mistake made by prophets who were really just uninspired, racist bigots. That's what makes me sad, and I will always come to their defense when I feel that they are being judged unfairly.

RosieMae:

You are apparently one of those who don't believe that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were inspired prophets of God. That makes me sad. What President Hinckley said is counsel for our day and does not apply to the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, any more than the Lord's commandment to build an ark applies to our day.

Liahona:

It is always a good idea to read all the previous posts before making a comment. If you had, you would have read the quotes that I posted where both David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee both prayed and asked the Lord about giving the priesthood to the blacks and both were told by the Lord, "Not yet." Thus, it is clear that the Lord didn't just allow the restriction but He was the author of it.

Joe Public:

Yes, just as the prophet, Moses, had authority to say that only those who were born into the tribe of Levi could hold the priesthood, while those who were born into any of the other 11 tribes of Israel could not.

Joe Public:

Was the prophet, Moses, the leader of a religion or a cult? I just looked up the dictionary definition of the word, "Cult," In Webster's Dictionary, and I found out that the word, "Cult," Is defined as follows:

Thus, according to Webster's Dictionary, all religions and churches are cults.

Joe Public:

And you were right, but suppose somebody today were to decide that women should be ordained to the priesthood. Would that give them the authority to just go and ordain any women that they wanted to the priesthood, without authorization of the Prophet of God? No it wouldn't--no more than somebody in Moses' day could just unilaterally decide to start ordaining men from the tribe of Judah to the Priesthood without the authorization from the prophet, Moses.

I thought non-Mormons were intelligent enough to know how to use a dictionary and look up the word, "Cult," Before they started bandying the word about as though they actually knew what they were talking about.

Joe Public:

Yes.

Joe Public:

Yes.

Joe Public:

Because even though he is A prophet (As we all should be), he is not THE prophet of the Church. As I said, there is only one man on earth who has authority to speak for the whole Church, and that man is the President, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the Church.

Joe Public:

Maybe they did, and maybe it was done in private, as has been done before, in the past, and not in public where it could cause both him and the Church some embarrassment.

Joe Public:

I'm sure that they sent him to talk about it, but that doesn't make him infallible. He is still human and can still make mistakes, as Moses did and as Jonah did.

LDSPriestess:

And as I pointed out, then why did we vote on OD 2? But the fact of the matter is that we don't vote on doctrine either. If you had read the whole post, you would have seen that I also asked when we ever voted upon the doctrine of a heavenly Mother, and when did we ever vote on the doctrine of eternal progression? I might also ask, when did we ever vote on the doctrine that Jesus is Jehovah? When did we ever vote on the doctrine of unconditional love? When did we ever vote on the doctrine that we were intelligences in the preexistence?

LDSPriestess:

That is a matter of opinion. I consider it doctrine, even though I do have some questions about some of the things in it.

LDSPriestess:

Nothing. That's precisely my point. Why should she expect a vote on that issue?

LDSPriestess:

I do. If that interpretation is false, then by all means, please give us the correct interpretation. That's what the Prophet Joseph Smith used to do.

LDSPriestess:

But it is an inescapable conclusion.

LDSPriestess:

I disagree. I believe that the ban was originally imposed by the Prophet Joseph Smith, as Zebedee Coltrin, A. O. Smoot, and John Taylor all said, even though he made an exception for Elijah Abel, just as his successors also later made exceptions for both Abel's son and his grandson, even though the ban was clearly in place by that time.

But just for the sake of argument, let's suppose for a moment that Joseph did not impose the ban. One thing that is absolutely undeniable is that it was he, and not Brigham, who gave us all the scriptures that very clearly state that Pharaoh was cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood, purely because of his lineage, he being a Canaanite (Abraham 1:21, 27), that the Canaanites were black, that they were descendants of Cain, and that Enoch would not even preach the gospel to them (Moses 7:8, 12, 22), and that even in Joseph Smith's day, there was a particular lineage that had a right to the priesthood (D&C 113:8). Thus, if there was "Racism" In the early days of the Church, it clearly began with the Prophet Joseph Smith, and not with Brigham Young, who was only trying his best to carry out the policies of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I don't think that the statements that Brigham made, which are considered racist today, were the basis for the Priesthood ban. I think that they were Brigham's way of trying to explain a policy that he did not understand but felt obligated to perpetuate because he believed it had been taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Edited: Tragula on 19th Apr, 2014 - 4:46am

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood - Page 19

Hi Tragula do you have any references for that?

I hear you loud and clear, the thing is I'm not sure if a lot of people see it that way though. Prophets can indeed commit mistakes.

How did you reach such conclusion about me? I love President Young and President Joseph Smith, they were amazing men and prophets of God and it doesn't stop me from thinking that they were also mortals and committed mistakes.

Love,
RosieMae

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 19

How many do you want? We know that anciently there was a particular lineage which could not hold the priesthood (Abraham 1:27). We know that the lineage that was cursed as pertaining to the priesthood was the Canaanite lineage (Abraham 1:21-27). We know that the Canaanites were black and that they were the seed of Cain (Moses 7:8, 12, 22). Thus, from these scriptures we know that there was a ban against blacks holding the priesthood anciently, and therefore, we have a scriptural precedent for the existence of a ban in modern times.

The only question is, when did the Lord end that ban? There is no record of it ending at any time in ancient history. In fact, we know that Jesus initially refused to grant a Canaanite woman the blessing that she desired for no other reason than her lineage (Matt. 15:22-28), and even though He did eventually give in and grant her the blessing that she desired, it is interesting that He initially refused her the blessing for no other reason than her lineage, even though He had granted a similar request to a Roman centurion without refusing him. Thus, it would appear that the ancient ban may still have been in place in the time of Jesus, and as I said, we have no record of the ban ever having been removed anciently.

Was it still in place in the time of Joseph Smith? The Prophet Joseph Smith, himself, revealed that there was a particular lineage that had a right to the priesthood (D&C 113:8), which implies that there was a lineage that had no right to the priesthood.

We have the testimony of Anson Call "That Joseph had told him and several others that some spirits had remained neutral during the council in heaven, and because of that came to earth as Negroes, through the lineage of Cain, whose black skin was perpetuated after the flood through the seed of Ham and his son Canaan." (Donna Hill, Joseph Smith: The First Mormon, p. 386) Some have said that there were no neutrals in the council in heaven, and while that may be true, nevertheless, that does not disprove the very real probability that some were at least more "Noble and great" Than others in the preexistence, as indicated by Abraham 3:22-23).

A. O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin, and John Taylor all claimed that Joseph Smith taught that blacks could not hold the priesthood. The Lord has said that "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (D&C 6:28) Thus, it has been clearly established that the ancient ban against blacks holding the priesthood was still in place in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

President David O. McKay is quoted as saying that he had prayed repeatedly about giving the priesthood to the blacks and that he had repeatedly been told, "Not yet." (Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, p. 104) A former Church Historian, Leonard Arrington, claimed that President Harold B. Lee also prayed about giving the priesthood to the blacks and received the same answer: "Not yet." (Edward L. Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 205, fn. 18) Once again, according to the word of the Lord (D&C 6:28), it has been clearly established that it was still the will of the Lord that blacks should not hold the priesthood as late as the Presidency of Harold B. Lee.

That ban was finally lifted in June of 1978, during the administration of President Spencer W. Kimball, and the words of the Official Declaration, itself, very clearly indicate that there was a specific time when the ban was supposed to be lifted and that time was June of 1978: "He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that THE LONG-PROMISED DAY HAS COME WHEN EVERY FAITHFU, WORTHY MAN IN THE CHURCH MAY RECEIVE THE HOLY PRIESTHOOD." (OD 2) This clearly indicates that there was a specific time when the blacks were to receive the priesthood, and that time was June of 1978.

Obviously, prior to 1978, whenever the Lord sent spirits to be born to black parents, He would have known that he was sending them to a lineage that could not hold the priesthood. If he had wanted those spirits to hold the priesthood, He could have sent them to parents who belonged to a lineage that was not banned from holding the priesthood, but He did not do so. Therefore, He must have known that they would not be able to hold the priesthood prior to 1978, and He approved. Logically, then, all those spirits whom He did not want to hold the priesthood must have already lived and died by June of 1978, and those blacks who have lived since then were obviously not among the group of spirits that the Lord did not want to hold the priesthood in this life.

I couldn't care less whether or not a lot of people see it the way that I do. The scriptures and the teachings of the modern prophets are on my side, and that's all that I care about.

Yes, I agree that prophets can make mistakes, which is why the Lord said, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (D&C 6:28) He knew that one prophet could make a mistake but two or three prophets who all say the same thing will not be wrong.

In this case, we have the teachings of the first eleven prophets of the Church who all say that the blacks could not hold the priesthood prior to 1978. It is highly unlikely that they were all wrong, especially when you take into account that a whole race of beings were suffering under this supposed "Mistake." Why would the Lord allow a whole race of beings to suffer unjustly? Why would He not just simply tell His prophet to give them the priesthood, especially when they prayed and asked Him if blacks should be given the priesthood? It doesn't make any sense that the Lord would allow a whole race of people to suffer unjustly for a human error, when all He had to do was to tell the Prophet to give them the Priesthood.

Tragula:

Rosie May:

Because if any of the eleven predecessors of Spencer W. Kimball had been a true prophet of God, and if the priesthood ban really was a mistake, then the Lord could have very easily corrected that mistake by telling any one of those eleven prophets of God to give the priesthood to the blacks. If you believe that the priesthood ban was a mistake, as you apparently do, then that leaves only one conclusion: none of those eleven predecessors of Spencer W. Kimball was a true prophet of God, and that is why the Lord could not reveal His will to them.

I'm sorry, I just can't buy that the Lord would allow a whole race of beings to suffer because of a simple mistake that could have been very easily corrected by telling any one of those Prophets to give the Priesthood to the blacks, especially when at least two of them (David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee) are known to have prayed to the Lord about giving the Priesthood to the blacks and in both cases the Lord specifically said, "Not yet."