Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 19 of 20

QUOTE Hi Tragula do you have any references - Page 19 - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 30th Apr, 2014 - 9:57pm

Register Login Text RPG Play Text RPG ?     New: 2 41 110 Why Join Help Register/Login via:Register/Login via:
Welcome Guest


+  « First of 20 pgs.  15 16 17 18 19 20 
Posts: 154 - Views: 6736 Rating: 10/10 out of 13 Votes
Best of  Blacks & Mormon Priesthood Controversial Mormon Issue.
Post Date: 17th Apr, 2014 - 7:54pm / Post ID: #


Member Junior
**
[?] CPosts: 39
Posts: 41
Avg: 0.0 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 0.6%
[+] Gain: 274.62 FP
Charm: 0

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:

Attached Image QUOTE
I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible? Https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng


Love,
RosieMae



Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 17th Apr, 2014 - 8:07pm / Post ID: #


Member Writer
***
[?] CPosts: 264
Posts: 269
Avg: 0.1 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 2.2%
[+] Gain: 40.35 FP
Charm: 1

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?



Post Date: 18th Apr, 2014 - 4:42am / Post ID: #

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood
A Friend

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon

Attached Image QUOTE
We sustain the Prophet which is differently from sustaining the doctrines he can put forward to the Church body to vote by common consent. There is a proper order in the Church that must be followed for something to become "doctrinal and binding".

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:

Attached Image QUOTE
For his [the prophet's] word ye shall receive as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. (D&C 21:5)


No mention of a vote of any kind.

Attached Image QUOTE
For instance, in 1949 the Church released an official letter stating that it wasn't a policy but a direct commandment from the Lord yet no revelation was ever presented to the Church body for voting and sustaining.


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
If the issue was as clear and as doctrinal as some people would like to paint it, then we wouldn't have contradicting statements, apostles agreeing and disagreeing whether it was doctrinal or policy.


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
Then Apostle Spencer W. Kimball stated:

"I know the Lord could change the policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure(. Spencer w. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, June 1963., p. 448)"

Possible error?


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."

Attached Image QUOTE
Remember that letter in 1949 that stated clearly that it was doctrine? Church policies do not need sustaining votes


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?

Attached Image QUOTE
There is no direct account of Joseph Smith ever giving priesthood restrictions to black members.


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
And certainly no revelation or statement from him has ever been produced or even stated that establishes the priesthood ban.


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
That's enough proof to me,


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
including the obvious fact that he himself ordained one Black man to the Priesthood


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
and during his life time they were at least 6 black men who were ordained.


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
Elder Holland stated in the PBS interview:


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
The quote you provided doesn't NOT quote the Prophet Joseph Smith stating that Blacks could NOT hold the Priesthood. That's just plain mental gymnastics on your part.


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
No, you prefer to believe in theories that the MODERN day Church does NOT support.


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

Attached Image QUOTE
They clearly stated that they do NOT know the reason for the ban[


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
but you seem to have more answers than the Church of Christ.


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
Even though you do not believe in the Church OFFICIAL web site,


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
the statement is clear when they say "THE CHURCH"¦", they are speaking OFFICIALLY for the Church


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?

Attached Image QUOTE
what I am saying is that the Church is telling you that those theories from the past have been officially DISAVOWED and that we do NOT know the reason for the ban.


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
But something tells me that EVEN with the overwhelming evidence that the theories you have put forward are NOT official LDS doctrine,


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

Attached Image QUOTE
you will still insist that those are the reasons for the ban when they are clearly YOUR interpretation


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

Attached Image QUOTE
because the Church has categorically stated WE DO NOT KNOW.


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?

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

Post Date: 18th Apr, 2014 - 6:16pm / Post ID: #

Page 19 Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Name: Paul B.

Comments:

Attached Image QUOTE
As such, he has authority to decide who shall get the priesthood and who shall not.


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
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.


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.

Post Date: 18th Apr, 2014 - 6:39pm / Post ID: #


Member Learner
*
[?] CPosts: 18
Posts: 19
Avg: 0.0 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 0.2%
[+] Gain: 246.24 FP
Charm: 0

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Attached Image QUOTE
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?


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
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?


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

Attached Image QUOTE
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?


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.

Attached Image Message Edited...
Support: Link added.



Post Date: 19th Apr, 2014 - 4:40am / Post ID: #

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood
A Friend

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood

RosieMay:

Attached Image QUOTE
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.


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:
Attached Image QUOTE
It saddens me a lot because I don't think people should go around saying those sort of things.


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:
Attached Image QUOTE
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:


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:
Attached Image QUOTE
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?


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:
Attached Image QUOTE
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?


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:
Attached Image QUOTE
Is this a church or a cult?


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:

Attached Image QUOTE
the system of outward forms and ceremonies used in worship; religious rites and formalities.


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

Joe Public:
Attached Image QUOTE
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.


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:
Attached Image QUOTE
Isn't Holland the man who was in the PBS show about mormons?


Yes.

Joe Public:
Attached Image QUOTE
Isn't he considered an apostle and also a prophet in your church?


Yes.

Joe Public:
Attached Image QUOTE
Why would you say you don't care what he says when he's also a prophet?


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:
Attached Image QUOTE
Don't you think your church would straighten any misleading teaching if one of their people states such in 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:
Attached Image QUOTE
But the mormon church didn't say anything about it, its more they obviously sent him to talk about it.


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:

Attached Image QUOTE
Those are policies not doctrine. As Cheeky pointed out, policies don't need a sustaining vote.


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:
Attached Image QUOTE
Not even the Proclamation to the Family is doctrine


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:
Attached Image QUOTE
Those were answers to prayers? What is the membership supposed to vote about?


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

LDSPriestess:
Attached Image QUOTE
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.


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:
Attached Image QUOTE
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 it is an inescapable conclusion.

LDSPriestess:
Attached Image QUOTE
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 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.

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

Post Date: 22nd Apr, 2014 - 10:38pm / Post ID: #


Member Junior
**
[?] CPosts: 39
Posts: 41
Avg: 0.0 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 0.6%
[+] Gain: 274.62 FP
Charm: 0

Page 19 Blacks & Mormon Priesthood

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


Hi Tragula do you have any references for that?

Attached Image QUOTE

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.


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
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.


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



Post Date: 30th Apr, 2014 - 9:57pm / Post ID: #

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood
A Friend

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood - Page 19

Attached Image QUOTE
Hi Tragula do you have any references for that?


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
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.


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:
Attached Image QUOTE
You are apparently one of those who don't believe that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were inspired prophets of God.


Rosie May:
Attached Image QUOTE
How did you reach such conclusion about me?


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.

Attached Image QUOTE
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.


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."

Guest please SHARE: "Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood" on:

+  « First of 20 pgs.  15 16 17 18 19 20 
Sponsored Links:

OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: About, How, When, Where, Why of Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood
Options Fast Reply Add Reply Add Poll


No Registration Required!

We welcome input from visitors:
Add Comment As A Guest
Guest, please be considerate by using the appropriate tags as well as checking your grammar before submitting or it will be deleted. See: Constructive Posting Policy.

Tip TIP: Press above button ONCE only. If you come back here via the [Back] button on your browser then you will need to click [More Options] button (below) first in order to re-enable your ability to Post.

> TOPIC: Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood


Share:

Like:

Donate Compare Membership
International Discussions Coded by: BGID® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2018
Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits
This site uses cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Privacy and Disclaimer pages.

LDS Topics

Current Mormon Deep Discussion from our Community:

Highlights

Russia FIFA World Cup 2018: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By JB 14 Hours Ago
Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By Nitrixs 3 Days Ago
Donald Trump: Can you see him as the next President of one of the most powerful countries in the world, the United States of America? By News 6.8 Days Ago
2018 Football World Cup Forum Contest: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By KNtoran 1 Week Ago
The Trump Immigration Wall: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By News 2nd Jun, 2018 - 12:21am
Russia vs USA: Will there be a World War over the expansion of Russia? By News 8th May, 2018 - 12:12pm
Bulletproof Backpacks: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By Champion 24th Mar, 2018 - 7:36pm
Nikolas Cruz: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By Comstat 10th Mar, 2018 - 3:52pm
Men In Uniform - Authorized Excessive Violence: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By KNtoran 7th Feb, 2018 - 12:03am
Atheists Not To Be Feared!: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By Gknightbc 18th Nov, 2017 - 5:34pm
Wide Screen Columns: Now your screen is not as empty as before. What are your thoughts about this new feature in the Community? By JB 14th Oct, 2017 - 12:32am
Offensive Trademarks: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By Abnninja 20th Jun, 2017 - 4:16pm

Updated every: 14 minutes