Guest
A Friend
Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon
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:
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?